National Preventive Mechanisms and their relevance for Psychologists and Psychology

by Elaine Rogers

National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) refers to national frameworks established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), which is an international human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations in 2002, and which came into force on 26th June 2006.  OPCAT sets up a triangular relationship between the State, the NPM and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) (Murray, 2008; Steinerte, 2014).

The NPMs are independent national bodies that are mandated to conduct regular visits to places of detention, or de facto detention, and make recommendations to the state to improve the circumstances of people deprived of their liberty (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission, 2018).

The primary aim of the NPM is to prevent torture and ill-treatment of individuals in detention by ensuring transparency and accountability in places of deprivation of liberty. This focus on prevention has yielded positive results in reducing the incidence of torture and ill-treatment (Carver & Handley, 2016).

NPMs must be granted, at a minimum, three powers (Article 19):

  1. to regularly examine the treatment of people deprived of their liberty
  2. to make recommendations to the relevant authorities, and
  3. to submit proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation.

Recommendations are one of the key tools of NPMs (Aizpurua & Rogan, 2021). OPCAT places an obligation on States to engage with NPMs on their recommendations.  Such recommendations are developed through analysis of evidence from visits to places of detention and can contribute to systemic change.

The role of the SPT is one of advisor and mediator. Its role and mandate is set out in Parts 2 and 3 of OPCAT. The SPT is composed of 25 independent and impartial experts from various backgrounds and countries and has two primary operational functions: to visit the places of detention of States parties, and to advise States parties and NPMs (Gonzales-Pinto, 2022).  With its focus on proactive relationship building, cooperation and constructive dialogue, the SPT encourages states to address systemic issues in places of detention and improve conditions and treatment of individuals deprived of their liberty. The OPCAT has a potentially broad definition of places of detention and deprivation of liberty, which can extend to environments under jurisdiction and control of the state in which a person cannot leave at will.  This expanded definition may include psychiatric hospitals or wards, nursing homes, mental health units, educational facilities, residential centres, community homes, along with traditional places of detention such as prisons (Lea et al., 2018; Grenfell, 2019; Steinerte et al., 2012).

There are 94 States parties to the OPCAT, most of which have established NPMs (see Figure 1). NPMs must be independent, adequately resourced, and their members should have diverse expertise with representation from civil society, including individuals with disabilities and their representative- organisations, and psychological knowledge and expertise.

Figure 1: Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

OPCAT provides freedom to states parties in the structure of NPMs. Either single bodies, such as national human rights institutions – expanding the role of an ombudsman, or creating a dedicated body; or multiple bodies composed of one or more independent bodies, often involving ombudsman offices, human rights commissions, or civil society organizations, can be designated (Murray, 2008). An example of a multibody NPM includes the UK NPM, which comprises 21 organizations.

National Preventive Mechanism. 
The contribution of psychology is important.  NPMs address not only physical safety but also the psychological well-being of detainees. People with cognitive impairments, mental health difficulties, disabled people, neurodiverse people, people with histories of trauma, and individuals from marginalised groups, are over-represented in places of detention and de facto detention (Garcia-Largo et al., 2020). These physical and social environments may not be minimally sensitive to needs.  Further psychological difficulties can arise from prolonged exposure to places of detention.  Marginalized groups, including ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and persons with disabilities, often face heightened vulnerabilities in detention settings, including higher rates of violence (Cain & Ellison, 2022). The NPM plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and well-being of these populations.

Despite progress, implementation of OPCAT and the practices of the NPM and SPT are still developing. The frequency of visits, and the interpretation of ‘regular’ visits varies greatly in practice (Hardwick & Murray, 2019).  Practice both within states and by international visiting bodies suggests that, unless there are specialised bodies with a specific remit to carry out visits to psychiatric and social care institutions, criminal justice systems tend to be prioritised over mental health and social care environments (Steinerte et al., 2012).  The SPT terminated its visits to two signatory nations – Australia and Rwanda in 2022 and 2023 respectively, as it was not allowed access to mental health centres (Ouliaris et al., 2024).

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.  Independent visits to places of detention and de facto detention lift the ‘cloak of invisibility’ and help ensure thqt rights of detainees are upheld. NPMs are vital instruments in the prevention of torture and the protection of human dignity in detention settings. Psychologists and psychological organisations have a role advocating for the work of the OPCAT, SPT and NPMs; advocating for the designation of NPMs in countries where they have yet to be designated; and ensuring that NPMs are sensitive to disability, neurodiversity, mental health, and promotion of psychological health (Lea et al., 2018). Psychologists have an ethical responsibility to protect the rights of mental health patients (Ouliaris et al., 2024).
Psychologists can effect change through engaging in preventative monitoring and contributing to NPM’s recommendations, ensuring they are psychologically-informed and take account of systemic factors (Gonzalez-Pinto, 2022), and through engagement in constructive dialogue with authorities.  Psychologists can also contribute to the scholarship in this area, further shaping oversight, developments and practice.

Resources

  • The primary NGO in this area is Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT).  There are good resources on this website. https://www.apt.ch/en
  • United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT): https://www.ohchr.org. Information and resources including a practice guide to NPMs: Preventing Torture: The Role of National Preventive Mechanisms – A Practical Guide | OHCHR
    The European NPM Forum.  European NPM Forum – Implementation of Human Rights, Justice and Legal Co-Operation Standards
  • Amnesty International’s 10 Guiding Principles for the Establishment of National Preventive Mechanisms

References

  • Aizpurua, E., & Rogan, M. (2021). Rights protection in prisons: Understanding recommendations-making by prison inspection and monitoring bodies in the European Union. Punishment & Society, 23(4), 455-477. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745211020818
  • Cain, C. M. & Ellison, J. M. (2022).  The Pains of Imprisonment through a Rainbow Lens.  An Overview of the Marginalised Conditions of Incarceration for LGBTQ Persons.  In: Ahlin, E. M., Mitchell, O., & Atkin-Plunk, C. A.  (Eds.) Handbook on inequalities in sentencing and corrections among marginalized populations. Taylor & Francis.
  • Carver, R. and Handley, L. (Eds.) (2016) Does Torture Prevention Work?, 1st ed., Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, available: https://doi.org/10.3828/9781781383308.
  • García-Largo, L. M., Martí-Agustí, G., Martin-Fumadó, C., & Gómez-Durán, E. L. (2020). Intellectual disability rates among male prison inmates. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 70, 101566.
  • González Pinto, L. (2022) ‘The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture: The Effects of Preventive Action’, Journal of human rights practice, 14(1), 134–159, available: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huac018.
  • Grenfell, L. (2019) ‘Aged care, detention and OPCAT’, Australian journal of human rights, 25(2), 248–262, available: https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2019.1642998.
  • Hardwick, N., & Murray, R. (2019). Regularity of OPCAT visits by NPMs in Europe. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 25(1), 66–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2019.1588054
  • Lea, M., Beaupert, F., Bevan, N., Celermajer, D., Gooding, P., Minty, R., Phillips, E., Spivakovsky, C., Steele, L., Wadiwel, D.J., and Weller, P.J. (2018) ‘A disability aware approach to torture prevention? Australian OPCAT ratification and improved protections for people with disability’, Australian journal of human rights, 24(1), 70–96, available: https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2018.1441611.
  • Murray, R. (2008) ‘National Preventive Mechanisms under the Optional Protocol to the Torture Convention: One Size Does Not Fit All’, Netherlands quarterly of human rights, 26(4), 485–516, available: https://doi.org/10.1177/016934410802600402.
  • Ouliaris, C., Gill, N., Castan, M., and Sundram, S. (2024) ‘OPCAT: How an international treaty regarding torture is relevant to the Australian mental health system’, Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 58(5), 387–392, available: https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674231221419.
  • Steinerte, E., Murray, R., and Laing, J. (2012) ‘Monitoring those deprived of their liberty in psychiatric and social care institutions and national practice in the UK’, The international journal of human rights, 16(6), 865–882, available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2012.707393.
  • Steinerte, E. (2014). The Jewel in the Crown and Its Three Guardians: Independence of National Preventive Mechanisms Under the Optional Protocol to the UN Torture Convention, Human Rights Law Review, 14 (1), 1-29, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngt042
  • United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (2018) Preventing Torture.  The Role of National Preventative Mechanisms.  A Practical Guide. Professional Training Series No. 21.  New York and Geneva