Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment, Part II Subcommittee on Prevention, Art.5 Size and Composition of the Subcommittee on Prevention

Kerstin Buchinger

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: 21 May 2022

Subject(s):
Torture — Treaties, interpretation

(p. 755) Article 5  Size and Composition of the Subcommittee on Prevention

  1. 1.  The Subcommittee on Prevention shall consist of ten members. After the fiftieth ratification of or accession to the present Protocol, the number of the members of the Subcommittee on Prevention shall increase to twenty-five.

  2. 2.  The members of the Subcommittee on Prevention shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, having proven professional experience in the field of the administration of justice, in particular criminal law, prison or police administration, or in the various fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.

  3. 3.  In the composition of the Subcommittee on Prevention due consideration shall be given to equitable geographic distribution and to the representation of different forms of civilization and legal systems of the States Parties.

  4. 4.  In this composition consideration shall also be given to balanced gender representation on the basis of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

  5. 5.  No two members of the Subcommittee on Prevention may be nationals of the same State.

  6. 6.  The members of the Subcommittee on Prevention shall serve in their individual capacity, shall be independent and impartial and shall be available to serve the Subcommittee on Prevention efficiently.

1.  Introduction

The SPT is a UN treaty monitoring body, initially consisting of ten independent experts, a number equal to its parent body, the CAT Committee. Taking into account the considerable workload with an increasing number of States parties to be visited by the SPT, the drafters stipulated that the number of its members shall be increased to twenty-five after the fiftieth ratification or accession.1

(p. 756) Similar to other UN treaty bodies, the composition of the SPT shall reflect a gender balance, equitable geographic distribution, and the representation of different forms of civilization and legal systems. In addition, the members shall be independent and impartial experts with professional experience in fields relevant to the administration of justice and the treatment of detainees.

2.  Travaux Préparatoires

2.1  Chronology of Draft Texts

Original Costa Rica Draft (6 March 1980)2

Article 4

  1. 1.  The Committee shall be composed of 10 members until such time as there are not less than 25 States Parties to the present Protocol. Thereafter, the Committee shall be composed of 18 members.

  2. 2.  The members of the Committee shall be persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights and in the matters dealt with in the Convention and the present Protocol.

  3. 3.  The members of the Committee shall be elected and shall serve in their personal capacity.

Article 6

  1. 1.  The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. However, at the first election half of the members shall be elected for two years. Thereafter, elections shall be held every two years for half of the members of the Committee.

  2. 2.  Initially the Committee shall not include more than two members from the same State. When there are more than 10 States Parties to the present Protocol, the Committee shall not include more than one member from the same State, save that members elected while there were 10 States Parties or less shall continue to serve for the unexpired portion of their term.

  3. 3.  In the election of the Committee, consideration shall be given to equitable geographical distribution of membership and to the representation of the different forms of civilization and of the different legal systems.

Revised Costa Rica Draft (15 January 1991)3

Article 4

  1. 1.  The Subcommittee shall consist of a maximum of 25 members. While there are less than 25 States Parties to the present Protocol, the number of members of the Subcommittee shall be equal to that of the States Parties.

  2. 2.  The members of the Subcommittee shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, having proven professional experience in the field of prison or police administration or in the various fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty or in the field of the international protection of human rights.

  3. (p. 757) 3.  No two members of the Subcommittee may be nationals of the same State.

  4. 4.  The members of the Subcommittee shall serve in their individual capacity, shall be independent and impartial and shall be available to serve the Subcommittee effectively.

Article 6

  1. 1.  The members of the Subcommittee shall be elected for a period of four years. However, among the members elected at the first election, the terms of five members, to be chosen by lot, shall expire at the end of two years.

  2. 2.  In the election of the members of the Subcommittee, consideration shall be given to equitable geographical distribution of membership, to a proper balance among the various fields of competence referred to in article 4, paragraph 2, and to the representation of different traditions and legal systems.

Text of the Articles which Constitute the Outcome of the First Reading (25 January 1996)4

Article 4

  1. 1.  The Sub-Committee shall consist of [number to be inserted] members. After the [number to be inserted] accession to the present Protocol, the number of members of the Sub-Committee shall increase to [number to be inserted].

  2. 2.  The members of the Sub-Committee shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, having proven professional experience in the field of administration of justice, in particular in criminal law, prison or police administration or in the various medical fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty or in the field of human rights.

  3. 3.  No two members of the Sub-Committee may be nationals of the same State.

  4. 4.  The members of the Sub-Committee shall serve in their individual capacity, shall be independent and impartial and shall be available to serve the Sub-Committee effectively.

Text of the Articles which Constitute the Outcome of the Second Reading (26 March 1999)5

Article 4

  1. 1.  The Subcommittee shall consist of 10 members. After the fiftieth accession to the present Protocol, the number of members of the Subcommittee shall increase to 25.

  2. 2.  The members of the Subcommittee shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, having proven professional experience in the field of the administration of justice, in particular in criminal law, prison or police administration or in the various medical fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty or in the field of human rights.

  3. 3.  No two members of the Subcommittee may be nationals of the same State.

  4. (p. 758) 4.  The members of the Subcommittee shall serve in their individual capacity, shall be independent and impartial and shall be available to serve the Subcommittee effectively.

Article 6

  1. 4.  In the election of the members of the Subcommittee, primary consideration shall be given to the fulfillment of the requirements and criteria of article 4. Furthermore, due consideration shall be given to a proper balance among the various fields of competence referred to in article 4, to equitable geographical distribution of membership and to the representation of different forms of civilization and legal systems of the States Parties.

  2. 5.  Consideration shall also be given to a balanced representation of women and men on the basis of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Mexican Draft (13 February 2001)6

Article 9 (former Article 4)

  1. 1.  The Subcommittee shall consist of 10 members. After the fiftieth accession to the present Protocol, the number of members of the Subcommittee shall increase to 25.

  2. 2.  The members of the Subcommittee shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, having proven professional experience in the field of the administration of justice, in particular in criminal law, prison or police administration or in the various medical fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty or in the field of human rights.

  3. 3.  No two members of the Subcommittee may be nationals of the same State.

  4. 4.  The members of the Subcommittee shall serve in their individual capacity, shall be independent and impartial and shall be available to serve the Subcommittee effectively.

Article 11 (former Article 6)

  1. 4.  In the election of the members of the Subcommittee, primary consideration shall be given to the fulfillment of the requirements and criteria of article 4. Furthermore, due consideration shall be given to a proper balance among the various fields of competence referred to in article 4, to equitable geographical distribution of membership and to the representation of different forms of civilization and legal systems of the States Parties.

  2. 5.  Consideration shall also be given to a balanced representation of women and men on the basis of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

EU Draft (22 February 2001)7

Article 5 (former Article 4)

  1. 1.  The Subcommittee shall consist of 10 members. After the fiftieth accession to the present Protocol, the number of members of the Subcommittee shall increase to 25.

  2. 2.  The members of the Subcommittee shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, having proven professional experience in the field of the administration of justice, in particular in criminal law, prison or police administration or in the various medical fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty or in the field of human rights.

  3. (p. 759) 3.  No two members of the Subcommittee may be nationals of the same State.

  4. 4.  The members of the Subcommittee shall serve in their individual capacity, shall be independent and impartial and shall be available to serve the Subcommittee effectively.

Article 7 (former Article 6)

The members of the Subcommittee shall be elected in the following manner:

  1. 4.  In the election of the members of the Subcommittee, primary consideration shall be given to the fulfillment of the requirements and criteria of article 4. Furthermore, due consideration shall be given to a proper balance among the various fields of competence referred to in article 4, to equitable geographical distribution of membership and to the representation of different forms of civilization and legal systems of the States Parties.

  2. 5.  Consideration shall also be given to a balanced representation of women and men on the basis of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

US Draft (16 January 2002)8

Article 1

  1. 1.  (a) There shall be established, under the Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee), a Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Subcommittee on Prevention) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided.

    1. (b)  The Subcommittee shall consist of [five] experts of recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity and shall, under its direction, carry out the functions herein provided.

  2. 2.  Each State Party may, in furtherance of Articles 2 and 16 of the Convention, establish, maintain or provide for national mechanisms to strengthen, if necessary, the protection of persons deprived of their liberty pursuant to an order of a public authority from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (hereinafter referred to as national mechanisms).

Article 5

The members of the Subcommittee on Prevention shall be elected in the same manner as members of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 2 to 6 of article 17, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of persons having professional experience in the field of administration of justice, criminal law, prison or police administration, or in the various medical fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.

2.2  Analysis of Working Group Discussions

10  During the first session of the Working Group, held from 19 to 30 October 1992,9 the issues of composition and structure of the SPT were discussed under Articles 2 and (p. 760) 4 to 7. Most delegations supported the principle of cooperation as being essential to the system envisaged by the Protocol.

11  The general trend of interventions considered that the eventual determination of the appropriate number of members should take into account all the relevant factors, including the workload of the body, the number of States parties, requisite qualifications of members, and financial matters. Many delegations considered that a maximum number of twenty-five members for the composition of the SPT was too high. Alternative proposals on the appropriate number of members were put forward based on other human rights treaty bodies and having regard for the potential financial implications of a large body. It was stated that the SPT would be able to rely on assistance from experts for missions and that a large number of members would, thus, not be necessary. Other delegations pointed out that, with regard to the comparison with other UN instruments, existing bodies were essentially committees which operated in meetings and conferences, whereas the body established under the Protocol would work in the field. They referred to the example of the CPT, which has one member per State party as well as experts, for the fulfilment of comparable responsibilities in a narrower framework.

12  With regard to paragraph 2, the trend of interventions emphasized the need to promote the election of persons with the greatest competence and the widest range of professional qualifications in relevant fields. It was stated that the present formulation could preclude the election of persons with professional qualities closely related to the needs of the body to be established. This included judges, lawyers, or academics, who might have solid experience in matters of concern but had not been ‘administrators’ in the field of police or prisons. A number of specific qualities were raised for consideration:

  • •  to add the words ‘with recognized competence in the field of human rights’;

  • •  relevant professional or legal experience in the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty;

  • •  recognized competence in investigative work;

  • recognized ability to engage in constructive dialogue at a high level.

Most delegates saw the need for a wide range of different qualifications to be encompassed among the membership of the SPT.10

13  During the second session of the Working Group from 25 October to 5 November 1993,11 it continued to consider Article 4. Concerning paragraph 1, the Working Group agreed to change the wording of the paragraph in such a way as to allow for an increase in membership at a later stage but at the same time not require the number of members to equal that of the States parties. To that effect, the wording of the second sentence of paragraph 1 was changed to read as follows: ‘After the [number to be inserted] accession to the present Protocol, the number of members of the Subcommittee shall increase to [number to be inserted].’12 With regard to paragraph 2, the Working Group agreed that the qualifications for membership established were too limiting. A number of delegates considered it useful to include the possibility to nominate and elect members having experience in the administration of justice and in a wider field of human rights. Therefore, it was decided to insert before the word ‘prison’, the words ‘the administration of justice, in particular criminal law’. The Working Group also agreed to delete the words ‘the (p. 761) international protection of’. Concerning paragraphs 3 and 4, it decided to retain them in their present form.

14  With regard to Article 5, some delegations emphasized the need for a proper representation of women and suggested inserting provisions to that effect. Others underlined that any reference to such representation should not prejudice the principle of equitable geographical distribution and the qualifications and requirements for membership of the SPT. Some delegations argued, on the basis of the principle of non-discrimination, against any reference to sex. The Working Group agreed on a compromise text, inserting after the word ‘men’, the words ‘on the basis of the principles of equality and non-discrimination’.

15  During the fifth session from 14 to 25 October 1996,13 the Chairperson-Rapporteur called for comments on Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5, as adopted as the outcome of the first reading. The delegation of Denmark made a general statement in which it stressed the necessity for the independence, impartiality, and competence of those carrying out missions. The observer for Amnesty International said that the quality and independence of the proposed body would determine its effectiveness. She felt that there was a possible contradiction between the desire to appoint the best possible members for the position and the appointment of members by States parties who might be influenced by political considerations. Thus, she suggested that the Committee should play a role in the appointment of members of the proposed body or that other methods of providing independent experts be explored.14

16  With respect to Article 4, the delegation of Mexico expressed the view that the SPT should be comprised of the same number as, or fewer members than, the Committee. Similarly, the delegations of the Philippines and Japan stated that the SPT should comprise no more than ten members since it should not have more members than its parent body. The delegations of Korea, Canada, Australia, and Cuba found that the number of members of the SPT should be linked to the number of States parties to the OPCAT. The delegation of Japan considered the wording of Article 4(2) to be too detailed and proposed the following text: ‘The members of the Sub-Committee shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, known for their competence in the field of prison or police administration or in the various medical fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.’ The representative of Canada stated that, in her view, the wording of Article 4(2) was already sufficiently flexible to allow suitable candidates to be found.15

17  With regard to Article 6, several paragraphs had been moved from the text of Article 5.16 With regard to its paragraph 4, a reference was made to discussions on whether the words ‘different forms of civilization’ should be deleted. Due to the willingness of several delegations to show flexibility, the drafting group had finally agreed to retain these words. Finally, paragraph 6 addressed the implications of the decision to enable States parties to nominate non-nationals.17

18  During the ninth session from 12 to 23 February 2001, the composition of the international mechanism was discussed with regard to the alternative draft submitted by (p. 762) the delegation of Mexico with the support of GRULAC.18 Regarding the composition of the SPT, the alternative draft mainly contained the provisions adopted by the Working Group in the second reading of the original draft.

19  At its fiftieth meeting on 22 April 2002, the Commission on Human Rights finally adopted the text of the OP submitted by the Chairperson-Rapporteur at the tenth session of the Working Group by twenty-nine votes to ten.19

3.  Issues of Interpretation

3.1  Size of the SPT

20  The original Costa Rica Draft of 1980 had already proposed a Committee of ten experts to be increased to eighteen as soon as twenty-five States had become parties to the OP. This seems to have been modelled on Article 17 CEDAW, which had been adopted the year before and which provides for a Committee of eighteen experts which was increased to twenty-three after ratification or accession by thirty-five States. Taking into account that the SPT will have a higher workload than other treaty monitoring bodies, which are usually not required to carry out field missions, and that the CPT consists of a number of experts equal to the number of States parties to the ECPT (presently: 47), the revised Costa Rica draft of 1991 proposed that the number of SPT experts should be equal to that of the States parties, until a maximum of twenty-five members was reached. During the discussions in the Working Group, many delegations proposed a smaller number of experts, and finally a compromise was reached with the model of ten to twenty-five members. As the number of States parties rose to fifty after Switzerland’s ratification of the Protocol on 24 September 2009, the number of members of the SPT increased to twenty-five. The terms of office of all the newly elected20 members started on 1 January 2011.21 Taking into account that the missions shall be conducted by at least two members,22 and that each member may be in a position to carry out two missions per year, the SPT could, in principle, conduct a considerable number of missions per year. This would require, however, personnel and financial resources that go far beyond what is presently available from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.23

3.2  Composition of the SPT

3.2.1  Professional Experience

21  The travaux préparatoires show that the professional composition of the SPT was one of the more controversial issues during the drafting of Article 5. While the original Costa Rica Draft of 1980 envisaged primarily human rights experts to serve on the Committee, the professional experience shifted with the revised Costa Rica Draft of 1991 towards (p. 763) experts in the field of police or prison administration. This was later somewhat broadened, but Article 5(2) still puts a major emphasis on experts in the field of the administration of criminal justice, and prison and police administration. Human rights experts are no longer explicitly required, but can be subsumed under the ‘various fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of liberty’. Other relevant professions falling under this category are, inter alia, medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, forensic experts, anthropologists, and social workers. With respect to their professional backgrounds, eight members of the initial team24 had a legal and two of them had a medical background. Moreover, three European experts were at the same time members of the CPT, which means that the SPT was able to draw on their respective experience in a similar body. The then newly elected first Chairperson of the SPT, Ms Silvia Casale, also served as President of the CPT from 2000 to 2007. With regard to the balance of professional expertise, no progress was made so far; currently, still seventeen out of twenty-two SPT members have a legal background. Two members of the present SPT are at the same time members of the CPT.25 In order to ensure that the SPT can adequately fulfil its mandate in future, it is recommended that States parties nominate and elect members with different professional expertise in order to reach the professional pluralism which is needed. Some members of the SPT should therefore possess medical or health expertise in areas of relevance to the OP, experience in policing and/or administration of justice, expertise in human rights, social work, anthropology, and education, experience in monitoring places where persons are deprived of their liberty, and knowledge of as well as expertise in areas related to persons who might be exposed to situations of vulnerability (eg children, persons with disabilities, LGBTI persons, or migrants/asylum seekers). Besides, experts should demonstrate profound understanding of and commitment to the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, have experience in working with a wide range of stakeholders, show cultural sensitivity and empathy, possess drafting and analytical skills for research, report writing, and editing as well as fluency in at least one UN language.26

23  In addition to the professional qualifications, Article 5 OP requires an equitable geographic distribution, the representation of different forms of civilization and legal systems, as well as a balanced gender representation.27 As with other treaty bodies, no two members may be nationals of the same State, and the members shall be independent and impartial experts serving in their individual capacity. They should also have enough time to ‘serve the Subcommittee on Prevention efficiently’.

3.2.2  Equitable Geographical Distribution

24  As far as geographical distribution is concerned, three of the first ten members28 of the SPT came from Western and Eastern Europe, and four from Latin America. This was not equitable, but it reflected at least to some extent the geographic distribution of the States parties at the time of elections.29 As of November 2017, there are five SPT (p. 764) members belonging to the African region; three experts from the Asia Pacific; seven members from the Eastern European region; four from the Latin American and Caribbean; and six from Western Europe and Others.

25  Twenty-five States parties belong to the African region, whereas five thereof provide members to the SPT. From nine States parties belonging to the Asia-Pacific region, three experts who are citizens of States from this region are elected SPT members. Seven members currently come from the Eastern European region, where nineteen States already ratified the OP. Out of fifteen States from the Latin American and Caribbean regions which ratified the OP, citizens of four States became members of the SPT. Finally, out of nineteen States parties belonging to the group of Western Europe and Others, six countries currently send out members to the SPT. Compared to the number of States parties from the respective regions, the current composition may be considered equitable.

3.2.3  Balanced Gender Representation

26  As only two of the first ten members were women, this cannot have been regarded as gender balanced. With the latest elections that took place on 27 October 2016, however, the SPT consists of thirteen female (52%) and twelve male (48%) experts, which can be seen as a major achievement with regard to gender balance.

3.2.4  Independence and Impartiality

27  With regard to the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies in general, new guidelines were adopted at the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the Chairs of the human rights treaty bodies, held in Addis Ababa from 25 to 29 June 2012 (Addis Ababa Guidelines).30 The general principles of those Guidelines stipulate that treaty body members shall not be considered to have real or perceived conflicts of interest as a consequence of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, colour, descent, or any other basis for discrimination as defined in the core international human rights treaties.31 Moreover, members shall not be removable during their term of office, except to the extent that the respective treaty provides for. They may not be subject to direction or influence of any kind and shall neither seek nor accept instructions from anyone concerning the performance of their duties.32 In addition members shall avoid any action which might give the impression that their own or any given State was receiving treatment which was more favourable or less favourable than that accorded to another State.33 Applying the general principles mentioned, the Guidelines then specify that independence and impartiality ‘is compromised by the political nature of their affiliation with the executive branch of the State’ and that treaty bodies’ members should therefore ‘avoid functions or activities which are, or are seen by a reasonable observer to be, incompatible with the obligations and responsibilities of independent experts’ (Guideline D). Furthermore, the Guidelines stipulate that individual holding or assuming decision-making positions in any organization or entity which may give rise to a real or perceived conflict of interest shall ‘whenever so required, not undertake any functions or activities that may appear not to be readily reconcilable with the perception of independence and (p. 765) impartiality’ (Guideline E). The importance of the independence of members of human rights treaty bodies was further reaffirmed in the GA Resolution 68/268 of 2014 and expanded into Rule 28 of the SPT’s RoP.34 The fact that some of the SPT members to date hold Government positions at least does not promote the impression of independence. In addition, it might also be problematic that some of the SPT experts are at the same time members of the NPM in their States.35

Kerstin Buchinger

Footnotes:

1  After Switzerland’s ratification on 24 September 2009, the number of members of the SPT increased to twenty-five.

2  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.

3  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.

4  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 fourth session (1995) UN Doc E/CN.4/1996/28, Annex I; see also 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, Annex.

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 seventh session (1998) UN Doc E/CN.4/1999/59, Annex I.

6  E/CN.4/2001/WG.11/CRP.1.   

7  E/CN.4/2001/WG.11/CRP.2.

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  See 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.

10  ibid, para 60.

11  See E/CN.4/1994/25 (n 4).

12  ibid, para 34.

13  See 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 fifth session (1996) UN Doc E/CN.4/1997/33.

14  ibid, para 52.

15  ibid, para 55.

16  cf the wording of Art 5 in E/CN.4/1996/28 (n 4).

17  See E/CN.4/1997/33 (n 13) para 64.

18  See 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, para 32. Cf. above § 7.

19  See CHR Res 2002/33 of 22 April 2002. Cf. above Art 1 OP, 2.2.

20  The elections were held on 28 October 2010 together with second re-elections of five of the SPT members whose mandates were about to expire on 31 December 2010.

21  See SPT, ‘Fifth Annual Report of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ (2012) UN Doc CAT/C/48/3, para 4.

22  cf below Art 13(3) OP.

23  For more details with regard to the funding of the SPT cf. below Arts 25 and 26 OP.

24  See Original composition of the SPT in Appendix B5.

25  See Appendix B5.

26  See APT, ‘October 2016 Elections to the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture: Guidance on the Selection of Candidates at the Domestic Level and the Elections in Geneva’ (July 2016) para 4.2.

27  In contrast, Art 17(1) CAT only explicitly mentions that consideration shall be given to equitable geographical distribution.

28  See Appendix B5.

29  Eastern European Group (10): Albania, Armenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, Serbia, Slovenia, Ukraine; Western European and Others Group (7): Denmark, Lichtenstein, Malta, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Latin America and Caribbean Group (9): Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay; African Group (5): Benin, Liberia, Mali, Mauritius, Senegal; Asian Group (2): Cambodia, Maldives.

30  A/67/222 and Corr.1, Annex I.

31  ibid, para 3.

32  ibid, para 5.

33  ibid, para 7.

34  GA Res 68/268 of 9 April 2014, paras 35 and 36; r 28 of the RoP, CAT/OP/3.

35  See Rachel Murray and others, The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (Oxford University Press 2011) 94–95.