One of the key challenges that National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) can face is restricted access to certain places where individuals are deprived of liberty, limiting their capacity for monitoring and prevention.
This restriction poses a significant obstacle to the preventive work of both the NPMs and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) and is incompatible with the obligations established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture(OPCAT).
In 2024, the SPT issued General Comment No. 1 on Article 4 of the OPCAT, which examines the definition of "places of deprivation of liberty." In this document, the SPT highlights that NPMs report practical difficulties in accessing certain detention settings due to a limited or incorrect understanding by the State, its authorities and other stakeholders regarding what constitutes a "place of deprivation of liberty".
Through its General Comment, the SPT seeks to clarify and address the obligations that States parties, NPMs and other actors must uphold under the OPCAT concerning the definition of places of deprivation of liberty.
Strengthening OPCAT compliance in Chile
In response to this challenge, the APT partnered with Chile's Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice to organise a national workshop in December 2024. The objective was to strengthen the State’s compliance with its OPCAT obligations, particularly those stemming from Article 4, and to promote a broad understanding of the term “place of deprivation of liberty”.
The event brought together key authorities and human rights experts from public institutions, security, justice and education sectors, as well as law enforcement, customs, armed forces and the national child protection service, among others.
Key presentations included contributions from Romina Sijniensky (independent consultant) and Sebastián Cabezas (Head of the Human Rights Protection Division, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Chile), who provided a national perspective on the importance of understanding the broad notion of a place of deprivation of liberty.
Additionally, the NPMs of Costa Rica and Chile shared their experiences in monitoring airports and municipal security, respectively.
Key findings
The dialogue among representatives from the national authorities helped identify several critical points:
- The need for ongoing dissemination of OPCAT: Changes in public administration can hinder understanding of the NPM and SPT mandates, making continuous awareness-raising efforts essential.
- Recognition of detention settings beyond the penal system: These include boarding schools and residential facilities, psychiatric hospitals and specialised medical residences, migrant detention centres and customs facilities, homes for older adults and children with disabilities, and other contexts where forced detention was identified.
- Persistent challenges: Cultural resistance to change within institutions, difficulties in accessing updated data, and a lack of human and technological resources for effective monitoring remain key obstacles.
Additionally, the workshop highlighted the need to:
- Clarify and review protocols to ensure alignment with international human rights standards
- Train and raise awareness among personnel on torture prevention
- Improve inter-institutional coordination and exchange of good practices
- Ensure protection measures for individuals at heightened risk, particularly children, older persons and persons with disabilities.
A paradigm shift for OPCAT compliance
The SPT’s broad interpretation of "places of deprivation of liberty" presents a crucial opportunity to strengthen human rights protection in various institutional settings and to reopen national dialogues on the importance of the UN Convention against Torture and OPCAT. While prisons and police facilities remain critical areas, recognising detention conditions in medical, educational and social care settings underscores the need for comprehensive safeguards.
Ensuring OPCAT compliance requires a paradigm shift. Only through coordinated action—policy reforms, institutional strengthening and effective monitoring—will it be possible to prevent torture and uphold the dignity of all individuals, regardless of where they are deprived of their liberty.
