4 FOREWORD BY THE GREEK OMBUDSMAN 2016 marks the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention “against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. The declared objective of the Optional Protocol was to establish a system of monitoring, by international and independent national bodies, of the conditions in deprivation of liberty in order to avoid acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Its necessity, obvious: without the Optional Protocol, the UN Convention against torture would lack the necessary and effective mechanism for the control of detention conditions. It would remain a declaration of intent, without an assessment of practices and applied policies. Its importance, highly significant: the fact that a significant number of countries that have subscribed to the UN Convention against torture, has yet to ratify the Optional Protocol, thus abstaining from the substantive application of the Convention itself serves as indicative proof: from the US and Canada to the Russian Federation, the countries of the Middle East, northern and eastern Africa and Asia. In our country, the Optional Protocol was ratified only in 2014. The Independent, constitutionally designated, Authority of the Ombudsman was proclaimed the National Preventive Mechanism provided for in the Protocol. The delegation to the Ombudsman of this special mandate came as a self-evident corollary of his long-standing accumulated experience and advanced know-how in the protection of fundamental human rights. An additional guarantee for the successful implementation of the National Preventive Mechanism mission has been the long-term oversight of matters relating to the provision of detention and living conditions, in line with international conventions and EU requirements, prior to the conferral of specific competence on the Ombudsman. Necessary conditions for the diligence and adequacy of the National Mechanism are, as prescribed by international treaties, appropriate staffing and financial support. As far as the first is concerned, the requirements of the National Mechanism are still lagging behind what is anticipated and appropriate. Concerning the latter, it was only in mid-2017 that the Mechanism was eventually granted subsidy, notwithstanding the fact that support was envisaged already since 2014 and the law that ratified the Optional Protocol. Hence, the present, 2016 report reflects the work of the Authority with resources redistributed from scarce regular funding. I hope