Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment, Preamble

Stephanie Krisper

From: The United Nations Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol: A Commentary (2nd Edition)

Edited By: Manfred Nowak, Moritz Birk, Giuliana Monina

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved.date: 16 May 2022

Subject(s):
Torture — Treaties, interpretation

(p. 703) Preamble

The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Reaffirming that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited and constitute serious violations of human rights,

Convinced that further measures are necessary to achieve the purposes of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) and to strengthen the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Recalling that articles 2 and 16 of the Convention oblige each State Party to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in any territory under its jurisdiction,

Recognizing that States have the primary responsibility for implementing those articles, that strengthening the protection of people deprived of their liberty and the full respect for their human rights is a common responsibility shared by all and that international implementing bodies complement and strengthen national measures,

Recalling that the effective prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment requires education and a combination of various legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures,

Recalling also that the World Conference on Human Rights firmly declared that efforts to eradicate torture should first and foremost be concentrated on prevention and called for the adoption of an optional protocol to the Convention, intended to establish a preventive system of regular visits to places of detention,

Convinced that the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment can be strengthened by non-judicial means of a preventive nature, based on regular visits to places of detention,

Have agreed as follows:

1.  Introduction

According to Article 31(1) VCLT, an international treaty is not to be interpreted in isolation but rather in its context. A treaty’s context comprises, in addition to the text and annexes, its preamble.1 This legal significance attributed to the preamble has been generally recognized under international law.2 The preamble to the OP is more comprehensive (p. 704) than the preamble to the CAT and its drafting gave rise to lengthy discussions about controversial issues.

2.  Travaux Préparatoires

2.1  Chronology of Draft Texts

Original Costa Rica Draft (6 March 1980)3

Preamble

The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Considering that in order further to achieve the purpose of the International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) and the implementation of its provisions, it would be appropriate to establish an independent International Committee authorised to arrange visits to places of detention of all kinds under the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the present Protocol and to report thereon with recommendations to the governments concerned,

Have agreed as follows:

Revised Costa Rica Draft (15 January 1991)4

The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Considering that in order to further achieve the purpose of the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) it is appropriate to strengthen the protection of persons deprived of their liberty from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, by resorting to non-judicial means of a preventive character based on visits,

Have agreed as follows:

Text of the Articles which Constitute the Basis for Future Work (2 December 1999)5

The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Considering that in order to further achieve the purpose of the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) it is appropriate to strengthen the protection of [persons deprived of their liberty from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] [the detained persons],

Considering that the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment could be strengthened by non-judicial means of a preventive character based on visit,

Bearing in mind also the principles of cooperation and confidentiality as basic principles of the present Protocol,(p. 705)

[Affirming that non-judicial, non-selective, non-duplicative and technical consultative visits can lead to the realization of the provisions of the present Protocol, and complement the functions of the Convention against Torture and other human rights mechanisms related to torture,]

Have agreed as follows:

Mexican Draft (13 February 2001)6

The States Parties to the present Optional Protocol,

Recognizing that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited,

Recalling that articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment require each State Party to take effective measure to prevent acts of torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in any territory under its jurisdiction,

Further recalling that the effective prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment requires a combination of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures,

Recognizing that States have the primary responsibility for implementing international law and the relevant international standards, that strengthening the protection of and full respect for human rights is a common responsibility shared by all and that international mechanisms are complementary to national measures,

Convinced that the protection of persons deprived of liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may be strengthened by non-judicial means of a preventive character based on visits to places of detention,

Desiring to undertake an international commitment to make the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment more effective,

Have agreed as follows,

EU Draft (22 February 2001)7

The States parties to the present Protocol,

Recalling the purposes and principle of the Charter of the United Nations, and the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular articles 55 and 56,

Reaffirming that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited,

Recalling articles 2 and 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which oblige each State party to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in any territory under its jurisdiction,

Convinced that further measures are necessary to achieve the purpose of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and of the need to strengthen the protection of persons deprived of their liberty from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,(p. 706)

Convinced also that combating impunity constitutes an important element in the prevention of torture and recalling in this regard article 12 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well as the Manuel on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol),

Welcoming the positive impact an independent regional and national mechanism could have on the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Considering that the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment could be strengthened by non-judicial means of a preventive character based on visits,

Bearing in mind also the principles of cooperation and confidentiality as basic principles of the present Protocol,

US Draft (16 January 2002)8

The States Parties to the present Optional Protocol,

Recalling the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the obligations of States under the Charter,

Reaffirming that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited,

Recalling that the effective prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) requires a combination of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures,

Recognizing that strengthening the protection of and full respect for human rights is a common responsibility shared by all and that international mechanisms are complementary to national measures,

Recognizing the important contribution that regional mechanisms may make to the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, particularly by non-judicial means of a preventive character based on visits,

Desiring to undertake an international commitment to make the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the Convention more effective,

Bearing in mind the principles of cooperation and confidentiality as basic principles of the present protocol,

Have agreed as follows,

2.2  Analysis of Working Group Discussions

The Working Group of the Commission adopted its agenda at its first meeting on 19 October 1992. During this first session, the Working Group established an informal open-ended group chaired by the Canadian representative, Mr Martin Low. He was tasked with first determining the schedule for consideration of the draft articles and (p. 707) then with preparing a preliminary draft report to the Commission. The main thrust pursued during the general discussions was to recognize the importance of a preventive mechanism based on regular visits to places where persons are deprived of their liberty, and to have this importance reflected in the preamble and substantive clauses of the OP. It was emphasized that such a system is necessary in order to strengthen the protection for the persons concerned against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It was further proposed that such a system should be based on the principles of cooperation, confidentiality, independence, impartiality, universality, and effectiveness. Moreover, it should take the form of a preventive, rather than adjudicative, mechanism involving an evaluation of current conditions in places of detention and recommendations on how detention practices and facilities should be improved in order to strengthen the protection against torture. Cooperation and confidentiality were judged to be essential for success.9

At its second meeting in 1993, the Working Group decided that it would focus primarily on the most essential policy elements contained in the draft text and would organize the articles thematically in order to undertake a broad conceptual review of the OP. It was the opinion of the Working Group that this approach would facilitate the identification of possible means for resolving the various issues that would inevitably be raised during the group sessions. The articles of the draft Protocol, as submitted by Costa Rica, were thus divided according to the ‘basket’ of issues to which they pertained. It was decided that the aims, object and purpose of the OP were to be discussed in reference to the title, preamble and Article 1 of the draft treaty.10

10  The predominant view within the Working Group was that the preamble should state, in simple and unambiguous terms, the overriding object and purpose of the proposed Protocol. It would be a clear statement designed, first, to confirm an appropriate relationship between the OP and the CAT itself and, second, to emphasize the key aim of protection by a system of preventive character achieved through regular visits rather than post facto investigative or adjudicative measures.11

11  There was general consensus within the Working Group that the aim of the Protocol should be to establish a mechanism which would assist States in taking ‘effective … measures to prevent acts of torture’ in the sense of Article 2(1) CAT, and that no substantive obligations should be articulated in the preamble other than those necessary to achieve the purpose of the system of visits. It was, however, noted that this was a very broad aim. As such, some delegations expressed an interest in including within the preamble an elaboration of the basic objectives of the Protocol detailed in precise terms. It was suggested that this method would generate further confidence among States by facilitating the acceptance and enforcement of the OP, while also acting as a guide to interpretation. This view was not shared by the majority of the Group, however, who felt that the preamble would benefit more from brevity and clarity like the traditional UN approach to text drafting. It was warned that listing and detailing purposes other than the basic or fundamental objective might limit the overall effectiveness of the treaty and create uncertainty among States about the primary thrust of the instrument. The delegations in support of this view reasoned that the other important details were better addressed in substantive Articles.

(p. 708) 12  Many delegations emphasized the importance of using the preamble to maintain a clear link between the Convention and its OP, whereby the Protocol is recognized as an instrument to enhance and perform the purposes of the Convention. It was the view of the Working Group that such an arrangement would promote coordination and cost-effectiveness by incorporating the work carried out by the body established by the Convention, namely the Committee against Torture, into the discussion on the Protocol.

13  Two delegations raised the possibility of creating a separate instrument, with a body unrelated to the Convention and its Committee, in order to permit States not parties to the Convention to take part in the Protocol’s system of visits. However, a number of delegations opposed this proposal, arguing that it could prejudicially affect the necessary coordination of the Protocol. The matter was discussed further in connection with Article 2.

14  Another debate ensued between those delegations that supported a proposal to add a reference to the provisions of the UDHR and of the CCPR, and those delegations that pointed out that such references had already been made in the preamble to the Convention and it was therefore unnecessary to repeat them in the preamble to the Protocol.

15  A third debate within the Group focused on whether or not a specific mention to the principle of confidentiality should be made in the preamble. Some delegations saw a need to emphasize the principle and thus include such a statement, while others felt that the principle of confidentiality was a key working method, rather than an aim. This latter group preferred for the principle to be mentioned in the operative articles rather than in the preamble. While it was generally agreed that the principle of confidentiality represented an essential means of achieving the objectives of the OP, one delegation felt that a reference to it in the preamble might be prejudicial given the prospect that, under the Protocol, confidentiality may be broken in certain restricted circumstances.

16  It was decided at the second session of the Working Group that further consideration of the title and preamble would be given once the whole text of the OP had been discussed and amended.12

17  At the first meeting of its eighth session which took place on 4 October 1999, the Working Group agreed with the proposal of the Chairperson-Rapporteur to hold a general discussion on, inter alia, the issue of the Protocol as a preventive, and not a punitive, agreement. It was generally felt that the goal of the OP was to create an effective system, not of sanctions, but of preventive visits in order to help States parties to improve the protection of persons deprived of their liberty. Prevention, cooperation, and confidentiality were referred to as fundamental principles of the Protocol. This discussion took place during the first and second plenary meetings and was held in reference to the preamble of the OP as well as Articles 3 and 18.13

18  Discussion then focused on the principle of confidentiality as mentioned during the first session of the Working Group. Several delegations considered the principle of confidentiality to be a modus operandi rather than a core issue. They felt that observing confidentiality was not an end itself but a tool facilitating confidence and ensuring cooperation (p. 709) among States. According to another view held by some delegations, confidentiality was one of the important principles on which the OP was based and emphasizing the principle could promote the overall acceptability of the treaty. In order to justify their view, the delegations sharing this opinion made reference to the explicit mention of the guiding principles as detailed in Article 3(3) OP. The Chairperson-Rapporteur, Ms Elizabeth Odio-Benito of Costa Rica, subsequently proposed to consider confidentiality as a principle having a complementary, facilitating function. She also proposed that a reference to confidentiality, as well as to the principle of cooperation, be included in the preamble of the OP.14

19  At the tenth plenary meeting on 14 October 1999 the observer for Australia pointed out that views were divided within the Working Group as to whether the term ‘detained’ or ‘deprived of their liberty’ should be used in the preamble. Many delegations pointed out that the latter term was more commonly used in the human rights arena and that ‘detained’ could be too narrow. Following the proposal submitted by the Chairperson-Rapporteur, the Working Group agreed to include the text of the preamble, as submitted by the drafting group to the plenary, to serve as a basis for future discussion.15

20  At the same meeting, several delegations expressed their views on the first basket of articles and related issues. The representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the delegations of Algeria, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic, made a joint statement on their position paper submitted to the Chair regarding the content of the preamble and Articles 1, 8, 12, 13, and X. They stated that starting from the preamble, the content of the draft Protocol should reflect clearly its cooperative, preventive, confidential, non-duplicative, and advisory nature. The aforementioned delegations expressed concern as to what the effects on national security and domestic affairs would be if the words ‘may’ and ‘any place’, as well as ‘deprived of their liberty’ were to be included in the Protocol. They held that these words were unacceptable because they were too wide, vague, controversial, and undefined.16

21  The Working Group held its tenth, and final, session from 14 to 25 January 2002. The Chairperson presented her proposal for an OP during the sixth meeting and invited delegations to submit their comments thereto. These comments were discussed at the seventh and eighth meetings on 22 January 2002. The preamble as proposed by the Chairperson placed particular emphasis on the reference to the obligation to prevent torture as contained in Articles 2 and 16 CAT. It also made specific mention of Resolution 2001/44 of the Commission on Human Rights which, first, recalled that the World Conference on Human Rights had firmly declared that efforts to eradicate torture should be concentrated on prevention, and, second, called for the early adoption of an OP to the Convention intended to establish a system to that effect based on regular visits to places of detention.17

22  The Mexican delegation supported the proposed Protocol, as submitted by the Chairperson, but stated that it would have wanted to see a reference in the preamble to Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. Despite this comment, the Mexican delegation accepted the proposal in order to reach consensus.18

(p. 710) 3.  Issues of Interpretation

23  The preamble contains the basic principles underlying the OP.19 It starts by the States parties reaffirming the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as ‘serious violations of human rights’.

24  The States parties then voice their conviction that ‘further measures’ are necessary to achieve the purposes of the CAT and thereby highlight the links between the OP and the CAT, as only States parties to the CAT may become parties to the OP.20

25  After this reference to further measures for the achievement of the CAT’s purposes, the preamble continues by recalling that Articles 2 and 16 CAT oblige each State party to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture and other ill-treatment. Hence, by establishing a system of regular visits to all places of detention as ‘one means of prevention’,21 the OP does not set out ‘additional substantive preventive obligations’, but contributes ‘to the prevention of torture’.22 In other words, the OP specifies only ‘further measures’ so as to assist the States Parties of the CAT to implement their pre-existing obligation to prevent torture under Articles 2 and 16 CAT in addition to the other measures explicitly provided for in the CAT (the criminalization of torture, prosecution of torture, the systematic review of interrogation techniques, and the investigation of complaints).23

26  The requirement for States parties to the CAT to include visits to places of detention as part of a comprehensive preventive framework has been emphasized by the Committee against Torture in its interpretation of Articles 2 and 16.24 The Committee, in its General Comment 2 on the implementation of Article 2 CAT by States Parties, cited the establishment of ‘impartial mechanisms for inspecting and visiting places of detention and confinement’ as forming part of the guarantees against torture that States shall put in place in order to comply with their obligations to take preventive measures.25 In other words, when the OPCAT provides for the establishment of NPMs (National Prevention Mechanisms), it just provides more detailed mechanisms for the fulfilment of the existing obligation under the CAT to monitor the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.26 Due to these considerations, one could argue that ‘States parties to the Convention are under an obligation to ratify the Optional Protocol as soon as possible’.27

27  The preventive approach underpinning the OPCAT is clearly formulated in the preamble, where the States parties are ‘recalling that the effective prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment requires education and a combination of various legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures’ and affirm (p. 711) their conviction ‘that the protection of persons against torture and [other ill-treatment] can be strengthened by non-judicial means of a preventive nature, based on regular visits to places of detention’. Independent monitoring mechanisms have been ascribed with an important preventive effect,28 notably the immediate ‘strong deterrent effect’ of a system of preventive visits.29

28  The long-term objective of preventive visits is to mitigate the risks of ill-treatment and, thus, build an environment where torture is unlikely to occur. In contrast to visits by other bodies, preventive visits under the OPCAT form part of a ‘proactive, forward-looking, continuous process of analysis of the system of deprivation of liberty and all its structural aspects’.30 Preventive visits ‘look holistically at the risks factors in institutional, legal and policy frameworks’ with the objective ‘to enter into dialogue on ways to improve the treatment and conditions of persons deprived of their liberty’.31 A broad understanding of prevention by the NPMs is reflected when the States parties recall that effective prevention ‘requires education and a combination of various legislative, administrative, judicial and other means’.32

29  The preamble also introduces effectiveness as a highly relevant characteristic of the preventive measures by States parties recalling that Articles 2 and 16 CAT oblige each State Party to take ‘effective measures’ to prevent torture or other ill-treatment. In 2009, the General Assembly called upon States parties to the OP to fulfil their obligation to designate or establish ‘truly independent and effective national preventive mechanisms for the prevention of torture’.33 In fact, effective functioning of the NPM is a crucial aspect for the strength of its preventive impact.34

30  The preamble also introduces the principle of subsidiarity, recognizing that ‘States have the primary responsibility for implementing those articles’, ie that States have the primary responsibility for an efficient protection of human rights. Immediately thereafter, the preamble prescribes the complementary relationship between preventive efforts at the international and national levels, recognizing that ‘strengthening the protection of people deprived of their liberty and the full respect for their human rights is a common responsibility shared by all and that international implementing bodies complement and (p. 712) strengthen national measures’. The wording makes clear that international monitoring bodies only play a supplementary role in ensuring States’ compliance with their international obligations.

31  An explicit link was established in the preamble to the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, which called for the adoption of an OP to the CAT in 1993.35

Stephanie Krisper

Footnotes:

1  Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 22 May 1969, opened for signature 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT) Art 31(2).

2  See eg Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press 1999) 602.

3  Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment submitted by Costa Rica [1980] UN Doc E/CN.4/1409.

4  Letter dated 15 January 1991 from the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations at Geneva addressed to the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights [1991] UN Doc E/CN.4/1991/66.

5  Report of the Working Group on the Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on its eighth session [1999] UN Doc E/CN.4/2000/58, Annex II.

6  Report of the Working Group on a Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on its ninth session [2001] UN Doc E/CN.4/2001/67, Annex I.

7  ibid, Annex II.

8  Report of the Working Group on a Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on its tenth session [2002] UN Doc E/CN.4/2002/78, Annex II E.

9  Report of the Working Group on a Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [1992] UN Doc E/CN.4/1993/28, paras 21–22.

10  ibid, paras 25–26.

11  ibid, paras 29ff.

12  Report of the Working Group on the Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [1993] UN Doc E/CN.4/1994/25, para 18.

13  E/CN.4/2000/58 (n 5) paras 12, 17–18.

14  ibid, para 19.

15  ibid, paras 59, 61

16  ibid, para 63.

17  E/CN.4/2002/78 (n 8) paras 12, 46.

18  ibid, para 100.

19  For other principles, see below in particular Arts 2(3) and (4) OP.

20  See below Art 27 OP.

21  SPT (Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture), ‘Analytical Self-Assessment Tool for National Prevention Mechanisms (NPM)’ (2016) UN Doc CAT/OP/1/Rev.1, para 2.

23  Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) and Inter-American Institute of Human Rights (IIDH), Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture: Implementation Manual (rev edn, APT 2010) 18–19; see CAT/OP/12/6 (n 22) paras 1–3; see Arts 4 and 11 OP.

24  CAT, ‘General Comment No 2 on the Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties’ (2008) UN Doc CAT/C/GC/2; APT and Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), Torture in International Law: A Guide to Jurisprudence (APT and CEJIL 2008) 25–26.

25  CAT/C/GC/2 (n 24) para 13; see also Art 2 CAT.

26  APT and CEJIL (n 24) 25–26.

28  SRT (Kooijmans) ‘Report by the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’ (1987) UN Doc E/CN.4/1987/13, para 83; see also Special Rapporteur of the CHR (Rodley) ‘Interim Report on the Question of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ (2001) UN Doc A/56/156, paras 34 and 39(e); Special Rapporteur of the CHR (van Boven) ‘Interim Report on the Question of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ (2002) UN Doc A/57/173, paras 36 and 41; see also Frank Ledwidge, ‘The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT): A Major Step Forward in the Global Prevention of Torture’ (2006) 17 Helsinki Monitor 1, 72; Matthew Pringle, ‘The Importance of the Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture for the Worldwide Prevention of Torture’ in Harald C Scheu and Stanislava Hybnerova (eds), International and National Mechanisms against Torture (University Karlova Law School Publication 2004) 11; Richard Carver and Lisa Handley, Does Torture Prevention Work? (Liverpool University Press 2016).

29  SRT (Nowak) A/61/259 (n 27) para 72.

30  APT and IIDH (n 23) 42.

31  ibid 42–43.

32  E Steinerte, ‘The Jewel in the Crown and Its Three Guardians: Independence of National Preventive Mechanisms Under the Optional Protocol to the UN Torture Convention’ (2014) 14 Human Rights Law Review 1, 6, fn 41; ‘It should be noted that the SPT has devoted a section of its 5th Annual Report to the role of human rights education in prevention of torture. There the Subcommittee notes that ‘human rights education and training is a key mechanism for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment in that it can help counter the numerous root causes’: Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, Fifth Annual Report, 19 March 2012, CAT/C/48/3, paras 65–76.