information and tips can have an influence on which facilities the National Agency visits, and on the priorities it sets as a result. external monitors, and an annual budget of 7 approximately EUR 5,000,000. Yet it is only responsible for around 5,000 places of 8 detention. Where an enquiry contains information regarding serious deficiencies, the National Agency will, with the consent of those concerned, contact the competent authority. If an enquiry provides an indication of a person posing a danger to themselves or to others, the National Agency will also immediately contact the head of the facility concerned. The OPCAT also established the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) to operate on an international level. It comprises 25 members, who are nominated and elected by the States Parties. Since 2012, the Subcommittee has been divided into four regional sub-working groups. The SPT may visit the States Parties for two reasons: Firstly, it may visit places of detention in the States Parties with the aim of making recommendations regarding protecting people deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. To that end it has essentially the same powers as the NPMs. Secondly, it may also conduct visits to support the States Parties in setting up their NPMs and to offer them training and technical assistance. 1.6 – WORLDWIDE TORTURE PREVENTION The very first preventive mechanism worldwide was the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), inaugurated by the Council of Europe. It was established under the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which came into force on 1 February 1989. The CPT last visited Germany in 2015 and published its 4 corresponding final report in 2017. The OPCAT entered into force on 22 June 2006. At the start of 2019, it had 103 signatory 5 states and had been ratified by 88 states. The treaty obliges the countries to establish an NPM. To date, 70 States Parties are in 6 compliance with this requirement. In establishing a mechanism, three different models have been followed. In the first model, the remits of existing ombudsman institutes were extended to include tasks concerning the prevention of torture (e.g. in Sweden, Austria and Spain). In the second model, various existing monitoring mechanisms were combined to create an NPM (e.g. in the United Kingdom). A third group of states set up new national preventive mechanisms. This was the case, for example, in France, Germany and Switzerland. However, the resources available to the individual NPMs vary considerably. The French NPM, for example, has over 46 full-time and 7 Contrôleur générale des lieux de privation de liberté, Annual Report 2016, p. 219 et seqq., URL: http://www.cglpl.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/RA2016_version-finale_SIG_2_EN.pdf (retrieved on 08/02/2019) 8 Dessecker / Dopp, “Menschenrechte hinter Gittern. Kriminologie und Praxis”, vol. 70, 2016, p. 75 et seqq. 4 CPT/Inf (2017) 13 Current as of: 08/02/2019, URL: http://indicators.ohchr.org/ (retrieved on 08/02/2019). 6 Current as of: 08/02/2019, URL: https://apt.ch/en/opcatdatabase/ (retrieved on 08/02/2019) 5 16