CAT/OP/KAZ/1/Add.1 66. There has not been a single case in the existence of the national preventive mechanism of its members being subject to criminal prosecution in connection with their work in the framework of its mandate. 67. Civil proceedings for libel have been brought by one individual against two members of the mechanism. The substance of the claim was related to inappropriate language used in respect of the head of an establishment covered by the mandate. Because of non-compliance with ethical standards by members of the regional team when the national preventive mechanism was first set up, the Coordinating Council decided to disband the national preventive mechanism group in Aktobe province, a move that was facilitated by recommendations made by international experts, including the members of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture. Paragraph 29 The Subcommittee learned that special urgent visits must be approved by the Commissioner, who also must approve any findings before their publication. This procedure may compromise the independence of the national preventive mechanism, as the Commissioner is appointed by the President and his or her activities are governed by presidential decree. The Subcommittee would like to recall the concern expressed by the Committee against Torture that the national preventive mechanism had not been able to undertake ad hoc visits owing to bureaucratic constraints. 68. In accordance with the laws and regulations governing the work of the national preventive mechanism, special preventive visits are carried out by teams without prior notice on the basis of allegations received concerning the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The decision to send a team to conduct a special preventive visit in an institution or organization subject to preventive visits is taken by the Human Rights Commissioner. 69. The national preventive mechanism in Kazakhstan works on the “Ombudsman plus” model, in which the Human Rights Commissioner plays a coordinating role, thus ensuring that there is constructive cooperation between the national preventive mechanism and government agencies; the Ombudsman takes responsibility for the conducting of unannounced visits and for the reputation of the mechanism in general. 70. In practice, special visits, conducted when allegations of torture are received, are actually agreed on with the Human Rights Commissioner. However, it must be pointed out that, over the whole existence of the national preventive mechanism, the Ombudsman has not refused any request for a special visit, the decisions have been taken quickly and the visits made promptly on the dates requested by members of the mechanism. This provision does not represent an obstacle to special visits. 71. On 16 and 17 May 2017, during the first National Preventive Mechanism Forum, the participants did not express any objections to such provisions concerning decisions by the Ombudsman; indeed, some members of the mechanism said that they were a positive factor. 72. On the basis of the reports by national preventive mechanism members on the outcome of preventive visits, the Human Rights Commissioner is entitled, in accordance with the procedure established by law, to contact the relevant government agencies or officials to request the instigation of disciplinary or administrative proceedings or a pretrial investigation in respect of any official who has infringed human and civil rights and freedoms. Paragraph 30 The Subcommittee is concerned that, in the various places visited, many prisoners were unaware of the existence of the national preventive mechanism and had never met a member of the mechanism. 73. There are cases of individuals held in mandated institutions and even of individual staff members of those institutions not being aware of international human rights instruments or the work of the national preventive mechanism. GE.18-05420 9