CAT/C/46/2 not enough to provide for safeguards on paper only. It is necessary to ensure that there are systems in place to make those safeguards real. The Subcommittee is well aware of the disparities between law and practice in these areas and during its visits it will continue to probe the extent to which the preventive safeguards for which it argues are actually enjoyed in practice. 4. “Normalizing�� the unacceptable 54. The Subcommittee cannot help notice that there is a tendency among some States parties to become inured to conditions and practices which they know to be unacceptable, but which they have come to accept as normal. The Subcommittee thinks it worth emphasizing that just because something is normal within a criminal justice or detention system does not make it right and that it is necessary to challenge such complacency wherever it is found. The Subcommittee understands and accepts that it is necessary to bear in mind the more general situation which is to be found within a given society when determining the precise parameters of provision within its systems of detention. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee does not believe that there can be any excuse for not treating persons deprived of their liberty in accordance with the basic standards of decency as generally reflected in international standards and according them, in practice, the basic guarantees for which the rule of law provides. 5. The Subcommittee and cases concerning individuals (including reprisals) 55. The Optional Protocol does not establish a “complaints mechanism”, nor are the preventive visits provided for thereunder intended to offer opportunities to investigate, examine and address the situation of particular individuals. The Subcommittee examines the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in order to inform its general recommendations to the State party on how best to prevent torture and ill-treatment. Although it draws on individual cases of ill-treatment as examples of problems which need to be addressed, it does not seek to provide a remedy for those particular cases – although obviously the Subcommittee hopes and expects that many of the cases of individual mistreatment which it has observed will de facto be mitigated or addressed through the implementation of its generic recommendations. 56. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee is anxious that States parties should fully respect their obligation under the Optional Protocol to ensure that those with whom it meets and speaks during the course of its visits are not disadvantaged as a result. The Subcommittee is well aware that many of the detainees who choose to speak with it are concerned that they will suffer some form of reprisal and is continuing to reflect on how best to address this issue. Early follow-up visits by NPMs and/or by civil society to those places of detention visited by the Subcommittee may offer a potential safeguard in situations of particular concern. The Subcommittee would welcome a debate on this important issue. 6. Prisoner self-governance systems 57. The Subcommittee continues to encounter situations in which the day-to-day life of closed institutions is very much in the hands of detainees themselves. Sometimes this is the result of neglect, sometimes it is a matter of officially recognized policy. It is axiomatic that the State party remains responsible at all times for the safety and well-being of all detainees and it is unacceptable for there to be sections of institutions which are not under the actual and effective control of the official staff. At the same time, the Subcommittee is aware that some forms of prisoner self-governance systems can play a positive role in improving the day-to-day experience within closed institutions. However, the Subcommittee is also aware of the dangers inherent in such systems and is of the view that there must always be effective safeguards to ensure that such systems of internal self-management do not work to GE.11-40683 15