Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT) Ratifications, NPMs, SPT and the RCT Honduras project Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims (RCT) www.rct.dk - www.torture.dk

OPCAT Adoption Purpose 18 December 2002 by UN General Assembly Establishment of a system of regular visits to be undertaken by independent international and national bodies to institutions where people are deprived of their liberty.

OPCAT Entry into force Status as of 28 February 2008 34 ratifications 22 June 2006 in accordance with article 28(1) of the OPCAT Status as of 28 February 2008 34 ratifications 34 signatories* (Ireland is the most recent signatory) *Signatories: Not taken into account are States that have already ratified or acceeded to the OPCAT

World wide campaign for OPCAT ratification Ratifications by region: Europe and Central Asia: 17 Africa: 5 Americas: 9 Asia-Pacific: 3 MENA: 0

Status on OPCAT ratification in the Asia-Pacific Region I Indonesia (In January 2008, the Department of Foreign Affairs has asked the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM) to assist in the draft of an academic paper on the implications of OPCAT ratification at the domestic level.) Republic of Korea (The Ministry of Justice is considering accession to the OPCAT, but inter-ministerial consultations are still ongoing. NHRC promotes ratification and states that it has the ability to fulfil the position as the NPM.) Indonesia: In its National Human Rights Action Plan 2004-2009, the Government of Indonesia vowed to accede to the OPCAT in 2008. Republic of Korea: NHRC (National Human Rights Commission)

Status on OPCAT ratification in the Asia-Pacific Region III Timor-Leste (The OPCAT has been submitted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation to the Council of Ministers in late 2007 for its approval.)

Status on OPCAT implementation in the Asia-Pacific Region Maldives (Is already a state party to the OPCAT. The Human Rights Commission has been officially designated as the NPM in Dec 2007. The SPT visited the Maldives in December 2007.) New Zealand (The NZ National Human Rights Commission has been designated as the ”central NPM” and will consequently be responsible for coordinating the work carried out by the other components of the mechanism.) NZ: Enabling legislation has been passed in December 2006 when the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 was added a section on prevention. The NPM in NZ consists of 5 components (oversight institutions) that constitutes the NPM, where the NHRC has the coordinating role etc.

Overview of Ratification Status in the Asia-Pacific Region Non-Signatory, but in the upstart fase (considering) Signatory Ratification Designated a NPM Bangladesh X Cambodia Indonesia Republic of Korea Maldives X (The HRC) New Zealand X (The HRC together with 4 other institutions) Philippines Sri Lanka Timor-Leste

The SPT Existence just over 1 year Have conducted 2 visits to Mauritius and Maldives Due to publish first annual report Visiting mechanism >< advisory role The SPT and the NPMs What is the role of the SPT?

The SPT Current difficulties Lack of ressources and secretariat function How to fulfill advisory role in the OPCAT? How many visits per year? What is the relationship between SPT and NPMs? Also during implementation? How will the SPT gain more experience?

National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) Establishment 1 year after entry into force of OPCAT or 1 year after ratification by the State Party. Form No particular form in OPCAT States Parties may choose the form of the NPM that is most appropriate for their country context. Mandate The NPMs have the same mandate as the SPT

Amnesty International Guidelines on NPMs Amnesty International has in the fall of 2007 drafted 10 Guiding Principles for the Establishment of National Preventive Mechanisms. The Guidelines are drafted on the basis of the Protocol, the Paris Principles, the organisations experiences and different legal documents (also the APT manual on OPCAT from 2004). Link to the guidelines: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/

A National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) can be? An existing Ombudsman institution (OMB) as the NPM Or an existing National Human Rights institution (NHRI) as the NPM Or establishment of a new institution that can fulfil the position as the NPM

Shortcomings of existing mechanisms OMB and NHRI Strong existing mandates that might be too broad and cannot fulfil the specialized and resource-intensive work of carrying out visits etc. Lack of resources – both human, expertise and financial resources* Not designed for carrying out work under the OPCAT, might lack the mandate/possibilities to access all places of detention within the country Lack of safeguards (towards detainees that are interviewed) in the legislation that establishes the NPM * Especially thinking of - that the NPM should consist of people with different educational backgrounds (lawyers, doctors, other medical backgrounds, psychologists, social workers etc). An OMB office and sometimes also a NHRI will often consist of people with legal expertise.

Honduras ratified the OPCAT on 23 May 2006 RCT-CPTRT Study Ratification & Implementation of the OPCAT - The Case of Honduras I Honduras ratified the OPCAT on 23 May 2006 In order to gain an in-depth understanding of the process of ratification and initial implementation of the OPCAT in Honduras, the RCT decided to undertake a study with the support of its partner organization in Honduras, the CPTRT.

RCT-CPTRT Study Ratification & Implementation of the OPCAT - The Case of Honduras II The project consists of a case study of the processes of ratification and initial implementation of the OPCAT Purpose – hoping to develop a ground theory of conditions conducive for the ratification and implementation of human rights instruments. Other Objectives: reconstruct the processes of ratification and initial implementation of the OPCAT in Honduras To propose indicators for measuring the implementation of the OPCAT