The NPM toolkit provides practical guidance to new and established NPMs by gathering in one place answers to the major questions they have on their institutional development, activities, models, and working with others.
NPM members are the decision-makers and official representatives of NPMs, as distinct from the professional staff of the institution, and often appointed for specific terms of office. Selection processes for NPM members should aim at an NPM with strong and independent leadership who possess the skills required to effectively carry out their roles.
The selection process includes all the elements that go in appointing or electing members in accordance with OPCAT requirement of independence, and the ‘required capabilities and professional knowledge’ (art. 18 .2 OPCAT) to carry out the NPM mandate.
Selection processes vary according to the NPM model and national context. In most cases, NPM members (including ombudspersons and their deputies, human rights commissioners, and members of new specialised institutions) are elected or appointed by parliament or by the executive. In most contexts, a dedicated selection committee is established to lead the process of choosing candidates.
In case of new specialised institutions with several members, the different categories of professional background may be defined in the law (for example, lawyers, medical doctors, psychologists, social workers, and representatives of civil society or other groups).
Whatever the model, it is important that a clear, inclusive, and transparent process for selection and appointment is set out in law. The law should include:
The selection process should be merit-based and, in the case of NPMs with multiple members, it should also aim to result in NPMs that are multi-disciplinary in their expertise, gender-balanced, and from a diverse range of backgrounds.
Firstly, selection and recruitment processes are important because the designation of independent, skilled, motivated, and qualified members are essential for the implementation of the NPM mandate and to drive change in conditions and treatment in detention.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, however, a clear and transparent process is important for public trust in the institution. If there are doubts about the ways in which NPM members are selected, this can impact the perception of independence and prevent the NPM from conducting its mandate effectively. Selection and recruitment processes underpin the independence of the NPM. Open and public selection and recruitment processes minimise the risk of having members appointed because of political interests or personal connections.
Finally, a widely publicised and open selection and recruitment process may also be an opportunity to raise awareness about the NPM and its important torture prevention role.
Transparency is a key principle that should underpin any selection process, that aims in the appointment of good members who can serve with integrity, and thus in an effective NPM. This principle means that both the selection criteria and the process should be established in legislation or another binding document and made available to the public before the start of the process. It is also a good practice to make sure that the selection criteria are developed in consultation with a wide range of interested parties, including civil society.
In the case of NPMs with several members, representativeness and multidisciplinarity are also key principles of any good selection process. This is because a diverse team that represents both the community and a multidisciplinarity of expertise is essential to effective NPM work. It also strengthens NPMs and improves their ability to be trusted and responsive to the different needs of diverse groups in detention and society, including those in situations of vulnerability. The OPCAT also requires states to strive for gender balance as well as ‘adequate representation of ethnic and minority groups in the country’ (Article 18).
Before the selection process for NPM members even begins, it may be useful to convene a roundtable of interested organisations (including civil society, such as non-governmental organisations, social and professional organisations, and universities) and other experts to discuss the needs, process, criteria and desired composition of the NPM. This is particularly the case for newly established institutions and in cases where the composition of the NPM is not specified in the law.
The first step in most selection processes will involve the establishment of a selection committee. Such a committee should be representative. In the case of parliamentary committees, this may mean that it is composed of parliamentarians from different parties and different backgrounds. In the case of a specialised selection committees, it may mean including different branches of government alongside civil society. In all cases, selection committees should have clear and publicly available internal rules that set out the way they function and take decisions.
The second step is the public announcement of vacancies, and ensuring that a wide range of candidates from diverse backgrounds have the opportunity to apply. This will mean publicising the announcement widely and in a variety of formats and national languages and with a reasonable deadline to apply. The announcement should also include the clear and objective criteria that will be used to make any selection decisions.
In some cases, candidates to be NPMs members are put forward for selection by different professional groups, including: civil society, parliament, the executive or the judiciary. If this model is used, it will be very important to stress that the appointed members must serve only in their individual capacity and not as representative of the particular group that selected them, particularly in order to avoid conflicts of interest. If such a system is used, it may also be useful for each group to present a range of candidates, from which an independent selection committee can choose the most appropriate NPM member.
The third step is to assess the candidates. Given the importance of criteria related to soft skills, such as empathy and teamwork for effective NPMs, selection processes should make sure to test these as far as possible, including through face-to-face interviews. This is of course in addition to the other criteria discussed in our toolkit on profile and skills. In some countries, the committee will publish the list of candidates and invite public comments or submissions - particularly from interested civil society organisations. This can be a good way of involving a wider group of interested stakeholders in the selection process.
Finally, the last step is appointment. In the case of NPMs with several members, appointed for specific terms, (with or without the possibility of renewal), the law should make sure that the members are not all up for renewal at the same time. This might require offsetting initial terms of office of some members, to ensure that not all terms expire at the same time. In the case of institutions with a single elected member, maintaining the tenure of deputies or senior staff can be a useful way to ensure continuity.
Related to the question of selection is that of security of position and tenure. For elected leaders, including ombudspersons, members of multiple body NPMs and members of human rights commissions, for example, it is important that criteria for removal from office are both narrowly defined and clearly set out in law. Processes requiring majorities and agreement among several branches of government are likely to be the best guarantees of independence. In places where a selection committee was established to select NPM members, it may be reactivated to consider removal from office.
Financial independence: an OPCAT requirement.
Ensuring the independence of NPMs is among the most important obligations for OPCAT states party. Article 18 of the OPCAT says, in particular, that “States Parties shall guarantee the functional independence of the national preventive mechanisms” (A.18.1) and that “States Parties undertake to make available the necessary resources for the functioning of the national preventive mechanisms” (A.18.3).
Without financial independence NPMs are unlikely to be able to fulfil their mandates. NPMs that lack financial independence may suffer interventions in their work plan, for example, or be inhibited from carrying out their planned activities. Without adequate resources and the power to decide how to use them, NPMs will be unable to independently decide on their strategy or carry out their operational plan.
Financial independence includes several linked elements.
Ability to define its own budget
The first element of independence is the fact that NPMs should take part in the process to define their own budget. Budgeting is a complex issue and each state has specific processes and procedures. The budgeting process may also vary according to the type of NPMs: whether it is part of an NHRI, a multiple-body or a specialised institution. Each government determines it national budget according to its own resources and priorities. Nevertheless, it is good practice for NPMs to be able to prepare their own budget proposal on the basis of their strategic and operational plans, which is then submitted directly (or as part of the overall NHRI budget for NHRIs as NPMs) to the relevant authority and / or the parliament.
Being granted adequate resources
The second element is that NPMs should have adequate resources for carrying out their mandates, including for staff, travel, external experts, and other operational costs (see below for details). What is considered adequate will depend on what is in the NPM strategy and operational plan, and may change over time.
Control over spending
The third element is that, once they receive their budget, NPMs should be given control over spending priorities and use of funds, without controls or restrictions that might unduly affect their independence.
Predictability
A fourth element of independence is predictability and the fact that NPM budgets should be protected from arbitrary reductions from one year to the next. Preventive work is long term and focused on addressing risk factors and root causes at the levels of laws, practices and institutions. Many of these changes take years to achieve, which makes adequate and stable budgets essential if NPMs are to have a team in place who can follow-up on issues and contribute to change over time. Stability allows NPMs to plan their work and not be wary of financial reprisals should their work displease the government of the day.
In addition, when faced with difficult economic circumstances, state budgets may sometimes have to be reduced. In such circumstances, at a minimum, any NPM budget reduction should not be out of proportion to other core state functions.
Ability to receive external funding
It may also be important for NPM independence that they be permitted to receive additional funding from external donors, including the United Nations (in particular the OPCAT Special Fund), the EU and other states. Although it is important to underline that additional funding for specific projects does not release the government from its obligation to properly fund NPMs – a point also made by the SPT.
A fixed percentage of larger institutional budgets
For NPMs that are part of larger institutions, such as NHRIs, these same broader principles apply with the added caveat that, to ensure predictability, the NPM budget should be a fixed percentage of the overall institutional allocation.
NPM should develop policies, processes and procedures addressing how confidential information is handled, starting by identifying what type of information will be classified internally as confidential and the level of protection it should receive. These types of policies might include information on: the NPM’s legal basis (when including articles regarding the confidentiality of information), procedures to handle confidential information, distribution and maintenance of information/records, how the NPM processes and stores personal data, who it might be shared with, and the rights of individuals relating to their data.
NPMs may want to have clear practices and procedures in place on how to protect and store confidential information (for both digital information and information that is recorded on paper documents), including:
A good tool for instilling a respectful vision and guarantee of these issues in the staff, is the creation of Codes of Conduct that address the issue. In this regard, a common practice is to have a confidentiality commitment document as part of the Code of Conduct that can be signed by staff and by those involved in the work of the NPM. This document might include a requirement that staff members shall not disclose personal or sensitive information, or information they have obtained through their official duties, to anyone who is not authorized to receive it. Such a document can form a part of NPM’s internal rules. Contracts of staff and members of an NPM can also include clauses relating to the obligation to protect confidential information.
Interpreters, external experts (and sometimes CSOs) that work with the NPM should also sign a contract and / or code of conduct, before they start working, guaranteeing that they will not disclose confidential information.
NPMs handle a large amount of information and sometimes this information is for internal and external use (when shared with authorities). In these cases, NPMs may carry out a classification of the information to determine which of it is public, for internal use, confidential and highly confidential. As well as an analysis of with whom this information may be shared and under what circumstances both at the external and internal level.
According to Article 21 of the OPCAT, NPMs have a duty to preserve confidential information and the confidentiality of personal data. Protection by the NPMs of personal data is important to ensure that the work of the NPM does not violate the privacy rights of individuals and to ensure that all individuals feel they can be open with the NPM. In practice, this means that NPMs should take measures to identify and protect confidential information, in particular when it includes sensitive personal data.
This may include ensuring that information enabling the identification of individuals is not disclosed without their free and informed consent. This includes not sharing such information with the authorities or in public reports. NPMs should, however, have the ability to publish data about individuals where the individual has given their consent and / or when the data is anonymized, including through the use of pseudonyms.
Explaining to individuals how the information they provide will be used is of outmost importance for their protection, as well as for building trust, particularly during interviews.
In some situations, including when interviewing children or persons with learning disabilities or psychosocial conditions that may make obtaining consent difficult, NPMs should nevertheless do their best to explain their mandate and the use of information, including if relevant to obtain consent.
As the SPT has noted, NPMs should assess with particular caution whether sharing information with a third party related to a particular situation or offence would inevitably involve the disclosure of personal data, or the identification of a person who has not given his or her express consent for his or her personal data to be made public.
The protection of confidentiality is closely linked with the ‘"do no harm" principle. This is about making sure that NPMs do not put detainees (and staff) at additional risk because of their work. The main risks are linked with reprisals, retaliation or inter detainee violence. This principle should guide the entire information management process, from collection, to storage and any transmission to third parties.
Improper handling of information can lead to identification of sources, unauthorized disclosure, modification or loss of information and to risks to the safety of detainees and others and violations of the rights to privacy. For example, neglecting the way in which data on the sexual orientation and gender identity of persons deprived of their liberty is collected can lead to discriminatory and stigmatizing practices towards this population. Information about the charges that detainees face or the reasons for their detention can also put them at significant risk, including of interdetainee violence.
In addition to the do no harm principle, following principles may also serve as a reference for NPMs:
Information gathered by NPMs can include sensitive personal data, including medical records, discipline records, or information that may allow the identification of a person without their consent.
References to the type of information that may be confidential by NPMs may be found in domestic NPM legislation, as well as data protection and privacy laws, and in international instruments on treatment of detainees such as the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules.
Article 20 (a) of the OPCAT gives NPMs the power to access a wide range of information to fulfil their mandate. The authorities must provide NPMs with access to information including: information about the number of persons deprived of liberty, the places where people are detained, and their treatment and conditions. Large amounts of this information is collected through monitoring, including through interviews in private with detainees and staff and the examination of registers and other documents in detention.
NPMs, contrary to the SPT, are not bound by a general principle of confidentiality and publish visits reports and recommendations, as well as annual reports.
These wide-ranging powers, however, come with the corresponding responsibility, to ensure that “Confidential information collected by the national preventive mechanism shall be privileged. No personal data shall be published without the express consent of the person concerned.” (Article 21). This article should be read in concert with the do no harm principle, which guides all aspects of NPM work. Confidentiality is one of the key principles of preventive monitoring. Ensuring that confidentiality is respected, and explaining how the information gathered by NPMs will be used, is of paramount importance in protecting detainees and creating trust.
NPMs, in implementing their preventive mandate, must be careful to maintain the confidentiality of information, especially when this information includes personal data and/or sensitive data. In practice, this means that NPMs should establish internal guidelines and procedures regarding the collection, storage, access and use of confidential information and personal data.
While each NPM budget will be different depending on its operational needs and the type of institutional model, some or all of the following elements should be taken into account.
Salaries and compensation: for dedicated NPM members and staff. A dedicated and remunerated team who carry out visits, write reports and enter into dialogue with the authorities is essential for NPMs to function effectively.
Depending on the NPM model, NPM members may be full or part time. In some institutions, NPM members are not full time and receive per diems or other ad hoc compensation for their work. Staff on the other hand almost always have regular contracts and are often paid in line with standard civil service rules.
The key point is that NPM work is highly specialised, requiring a dedicated and stable team who understand the issues present in different types of places of deprivation of liberty and the preventive approach to dealing with them. For NPMs that are part of larger institutions, such as NHRIs, NPM teams may be supported by the existence of other existing departments working on administration, communication or other aspects, while new specialised institutions will have to budget for these functions as well.
Honorarium for external experts: Because of the nature of preventive work, multidisciplinary teams are essential if NPMs are to gain a holistic understanding of the places that they visit. However, it may not always be possible or desirable for NPMs to have all of this expertise in-house. NPMs thus usually require a dedicated budget for hiring external experts, including, for example, doctors and psychiatrists.
Interpreters: Because many people in detention may speak foreign or minority languages, many NPMs also require a budget for interpreters who can accompany them on their detention visits. This includes fees, as well as travel and accommodation costs.
Travel and logistics costs related to visits to places of detention: Even in small countries, the range of places that fall within an NPM’s mandate is likely to be vast. Many of these places may be far from NPM offices, requiring transportation costs (either by train, planes, boats, cars or other means) accommodation, per diems and / or meal costs, often for extended periods while in-depth visits and follow-up takes place.
Offices and equipment: NPMs need office space, IT equipment and internet access, and the ability to keep sensitive information safe and secure. This may mean that NPMs have their own premises or a dedicated and lockable section of offices within those of a larger institution. This equipment will entail upfront costs for new institutions, as well as ongoing maintenance and replacement costs over time.
Publication and translation: NPMs publish a wide range of reports, including annual reports (which state parties are under an OPCAT obligation to publish and disseminate under A.23), thematic, visit and other reports in accordance with their objectives. NPM’s thus need sufficient resources to edit, publish and often translate their reports (including into national and minority languages). Many NPMs also publish English language versions or executive summaries of their important reports to enable them to be shared with other torture prevention actors. Some NPMs also produce audio or video versions of their reports to increase their reach and accessibility. All of these options require specific funds.
Training and exchanges with peers: Because of the specific nature of the NPM mandate, new and existing staff will likely need to spend some time training on torture prevention in general and on specific places, themes and areas of work. A dedicated training budget, which also includes the possibility for NPMs to visit and welcome other NPMs to exchange practices is very useful in this regard.
Participation in international processes and meetings: International processes and meetings may often be relevant to the work of NPMs, in particular sessions of treaty bodies such as the Committee against Torture. Space in NPM budgets to allow for this kind of interaction may be useful – particularly in cases where international bodies rely on NPM reports and recommendations in the preparation of their own.
Education: depending on their objectives, NPMs may also wish to budget for educational activities. This might include training on their mandate or other relevant torture prevention issues for public authorities. This might be particularly important for newly established institutions.
Communication: NPMs should also consider communication in their budget. This may include awareness raising on their mandate and funds for developing and maintaining communication materials and tools, particularly an NPM website.
For NPMs that are part of ombuds institutions or national human rights commissions it is likely that a number of specific questions will need to be addressed in their internal rules, including:
For multiple body NPMs, it will additionally be important to consider issues such as:
NPMs may wish to include a wide range of different issues in their internal rules and procedures. This might include some or all of the following elements:
Roles and responsibility
Procedures
Working Methods
Ethics and principles
Internal rules are usually developed by the NPM itself. For NPMs that are part of broader institutions, the internal rules may be a subsection of the broader institutional rules or a separate document. In the latter case, they should nevertheless be developed in consultation with the relevant departments of the broader institution, and be coherent with any wider institutional rules.
NPMs will usually need to begin developing their internal rules and procedures in the first year of operation, although they may not wish to rush into a formally adopted set of rules before they have had an opportunity to put them into practice and make changes based on what works.
Among different NPMs, there are a range of practices relating to the level of formality of their internal rules. In some cases, the law stipulates that the NPM has to establish its internal rules. In other countries, it is also required that internal rules are adopted in some formal way by the institution. For other NPMs, they are less formal documents that evolve over time in response to different needs and changing practices.
There are also a variety of practices relating to publication. In some places, the internal rules are a public document, published in the official gazette or the NPM website. In others they are kept for internal use only.
Internal rules and procedures contribute to the good governance of institutions, in other words, the system by which an organisation makes and implements decisions in pursuit of its objectives.
As such, internal rules are important for NPMs because they clarify roles and responsibilities; and procedures for decision-making, in line with the organisational structure of the institution. This is particularly important for NPMs composed of several members, or for NPMs which are part of ombuds institutions and national human rights commissions. In this sense, they are the link between the NPM’s internal organisation and effective execution of its mandate.
For both multiple body NPMs and NPMs that are part of ombuds institutions and national human rights commissions internal rules and procedures can greatly facilitate information sharing and internal communication with other departments from the same institution. This is particularly the case around issues like complaints or legal and policy work that might involve a number of different departments.
They may also help to define an NPM’s ethics, values, internal culture and ways of working. This is particularly the case if they include references to working methods or core principles (for example, a human rights-based approach, and non-discrimination). This can be useful for new staff and for teambuilding, as well as providing a degree of protection and sustainability for the institution, including when there is a change in institutional leadership.
Because they are likely to cover questions about representation and external communication, they may also be useful in clarifying who speaks for the NPM, including in relation to the media.
Internal rules are one or several documents that help NPMs to organise and clarify their internal functioning and processes, including, for example: procedures, working methods, decision making, and ethical considerations.
From the beginning, it may also be important for NPM’s to consider how they will evaluate their progress, both during and after the plan comes to an end. This means setting objectives or goals that are specific and clear. For some, more complex, objectives this might also mean breaking them down into sub-objectives or milestones, which can be more easily measured. The key question for NPM’s when thinking about evaluation of each objective is: how will we know if this happened? This might include considering indicators Measurement and evaluation is much more likely to be achievable and useful if NPMs consider it from the beginning of the planning process. This is particularly because developing indicators is a great way to assess whether the objectives in the plan are specific and achievable. Trying to come up with indicators for broad and imprecise objectives once the plan is already adopted, is likely to be a frustrating and difficult experience. Throughout the year, the NPM may wish to also make time for regular review meetings, to ensure that the organization is on track to achieving its objectives.
Because evaluation is a key element of planning (before, during and afterwards), they also provide an opportunity to reflect and change course, based on changing conditions, new information, or the realisation that current actions or strategies are not working as predicted.
When and what type of strategic and operational plan is needed will depend on the model and stage of institutional development of each NPM.
For new NPMs it might be difficult to develop a comprehensive strategic plan immediately after establishment. Time is likely to be required for the new institution to map the place of deprivation of liberty that fall within its mandate, as well as to do the research and consultations required to understand where the risks of torture and ill-treatment are to be found, and thus where the NPM should focus its attention.
It might be useful in such cases for the NPM to first adopt a preliminary plan for its first period of operation, covering between 12 to 18 months. The following aspects could be included: the first visits it plans to do, any training and capacity building, and publication of the first annual report. Within this preliminary period, the NPM can then set aside time to develop a more comprehensive strategy, based on the steps outlined above. This kind of preliminary plan should make sure to include sufficient time for institutional development and staff training.
For NPMs that form part of larger institutions, such as ombuds institutions or national human rights commissions, it might be necessary to develop a shorter initial plan, particularly in cases where the NPM is set up in the middle of an existing strategic plan. This initial plan can then later be replaced by a more comprehensive and longer-term plan that is properly integrated into the overall institution’s planning process, once the current cycle comes to an end.
Once an NPM has developed its strategic plan, the next step is to put it into practice. This is done through an operational plan. Each element of the operational plan should be aimed at helping the NPM to achieve a specific objective of the strategic plan. Operational plans are thus often internal documents to the institution, and their main audience are NPM team members.
To develop an operational plan, NPMs may start first breaking down their strategic plan into one-year (or shorter) objectives. Then they may think about the different activities or interventions that will help them to achieve these objectives. These might be visits to places of detention, dialogue with the authorities, training and capacity building, educational activities, legal and policy advice, or other things.
It is important to keep in mind that the operational plan should be simple and easy to understand. The more complicated they are, the less likely it is that the NPM team will understand and follow them. This might mean choosing a number of key activities (according to their capacities) that will help the NPM to reach its objectives that year. As with the strategic plan, each of these activities will ideally be accompanied by some milestones or intermediate steps that will help NPMs to know whether the institution is on track to achieving them.
Strategic and operational planning processes often follow a series of stages, with the strategic plan being developed first, followed by the operational plans that are needed to put it into effect. Depending on their situation and institutional development, NPMs may follow these stages in a different order, and some of them not at all.
Internal organisational analysis. During this stage, NPMs may ask themselves the following questions: what is their internal capacity? where are there gaps in terms of human or financial resources? How those gaps can be filled in order to more effectively carry out its mandate and achieve its strategic objectives?
Analysis of risks and of needs. During this stage, the NPM may ask itself, and consult its partners about the following: what are the most important risks and root causes of torture and ill-treatment in the country in which we operate? Responding to this question might involve mapping the different places of deprivation of liberty in the country, convening discussions among relevant experts, and examining the reports of relevant international or regional experts, including, for example, the Committee against Torture. This analysis may form a useful baseline, which the NPM can later use to measure progress.
Definition of objectives or strategic goals, taking into account its mandate, powers and resources. While the vision and mission are likely to be broad statements, the NPM’s objectives or strategic goals are what it thinks that it can achieve within the strategic planning period. They thus need to be realistic and mindful of the factors outside the NPM’s control that will have an impact on its ability to put them into practice (for example, the existence of political will to change law and policy).
Throughout the planning process, engagement with civil society organisations and other oversight institutions may be useful and contribute to later success in implementation. This includes consulting at the initial stages, in order to ensure that the objectives respond to the most important risks in detention. It might also include consulting with a smaller advisory group during the drafting stage, such as NPM’s advisory councils where they exist
Again, while NPMs can adapt the structure and content of their operational plans to suit their needs, some or all of the following information may be useful to include:
NPMs should also include room for flexibility, in order to be able to adapt and respond to new and unexpected events.
While a number of different models are possible, NPM strategic plans may include most if not all of the following elements.
Developing its strategic and operational plans should be an inclusive process, ideally involving the whole NPM team. An external advisory group or larger group of stakeholders might also be involved at the initial risk and objective identification phase, as well as in consultations on the final draft. Nevertheless the final decisions about what is in both strategic and operational plans should rest with the NPM leadership. This includes when the NPM is part of a larger institution, such as a National Human Rights Institution.
For the majority of NPMs, which are either ombuds institutions or national human rights commissions, or are part of multiple body NPMs, it may be useful to develop the NPM strategic plan in synergy with other departments. For ombuds institutions or national human rights commissions, the NPM strategic plan will ideally be aligned with or form part of an overall institutional plan that is developed at the same time. While the NPM should have autonomy to decide on its objectives and activities, these should nevertheless fit within the overall objectives of the institution and development might usefully include relevant NHRI staff, including from the planning and evaluation department, for example. This might also be a useful time to consider cross-cutting themes on which the institution as a whole would like to focus.
In the case of multiple bodies NPMs, it may be useful – although quite complex – to have a single strategic plan. This could help to maximise resources and ensure cohesion among the different institutions. In this case, it is essential to allow sufficient time so that all the participating institutions have buy in, even if the process is led by one of the institutions.
In some cases, NPMs are assisted throughout the process by external consultants who can help facilitate the process. It is important to underline, however, that strategic plans that are entirely sub-contracted or developed by external consultants (or that do not reflect the agreed objectives of the NPM team itself) are unlikely to be successfully implemented, as they will likely lack sufficient ownership from the team.
Finally, ongoing internal communications are essential to the success of any planning process. NPMs should thus make sure they set aside sufficient time throughout the lifetime of a plan for team meetings and discussions, so that everyone understands what is planned and how it contributes to the NPM’s objectives.
NPMs have broad mandates, within which they need to find focus. Strategic planning, through identifying priorities and objectives can help NPMs focus, make choices and maximise resources. For new NPMs, it may be hard to immediately define the changes they would like to see, or the main goals they would like to achieve.
Planning does not have to only relate to changes in places of deprivation of liberty (for example: “to reduce the overuse of pre-trial detention”). Indeed, newly established NPMs may wish to focus much of their initial plan on internal development and capacity building (for example, building a strong and stable institution with staff who have the expertise they need), before being able to focus on goals that relate to making change in detention.
Planning helps to focus the energy of the team by ensuring that everyone working for the NPM knows what they are doing and why it is important. The process of planning also helps to establish agreement and understanding within the NPM around the mandate, identity, objectives, activities and results, which makes teams both stronger and more effective.
Strategic plans are also important externally to the institution, as a way of communicating to stakeholders what the NPM is trying to achieve and how. This way, it helps the NPM to ensure that everyone involved in torture prevention understands their unique role and contribution, as well as gather agreement on possible joint thematic areas of work.
Operational plans are also often the basis on which the NPM can define its budget and necessary resources.
A strategic plan is a policy document that sets out the key changes that NPMs would like to see over a defined period, generally over several years. Strategic plans ask the question: where do we want to go?
An operational plan is a dynamic document that translates the strategies of the NPM into specific activities, usually covering a one-year period. Operational plans ask the question: what are we going to do to get there?
Strategic and operational planning is part of an NPM’s ‘theory of change’ – which is a way for NPMs to picture what it wants to change and how. These plans help showing the links between NPM’s day to day work, (visiting places of detention) and its overall goals.
NPM members and staff should be independent from their previous functions. For example, a lawyer cannot follow the case of /or interview one of his or her clients during a prison visit. Likewise, an NGO representative should not provide information to his or her former NGO related to the case of a detainee of interest. Assigning NPM members to work on a full-time basis and ensuring they do not undertake any other professional activity can help mitigate this risk. In addition, it is good practice to include a provision in the law establishing the NPM relating to situations of conflict of interest.
In some cases, members or staff may have social or friendship ties with, for example, penitentiary authorities or detainees. In such case, the member or staff is in a temporary situation of conflict of interest and should declare it, as well as refrain from related interviews or from participating in a specific visit.
The expertise of members and staff with previous professional experience in places of deprivation of liberty may help the NPM to better understand the detention system. However, it could put this person, as a former colleague, in a delicate position and make him or her unable to give constructive and objective feedback. In this case, members or staff could contribute to the preparation of a visit to a place where they have worked in the past, without participating in the visit itself.
NPMs resort sometimes to external experts – with previous experience and knowledge in the field of law enforcement or administration of justice – for advice or to accompany visits to places of detention, without being part of the NPM composition, in order to avoid situations of conflict of interest.
NPM work is operational and demanding. Consequently, members should be paid in accordance with their level of expertise and responsibility. This enables members to work exclusively for the NPM and help in avoiding situations of conflict of interest, where a member or staff of an NPM keeps his or her original job during his or her tenure.
Article 18.1 of the OPCAT requires state parties to guarantee the functional independence of the institution and ensure that the institution is composed of independent personnel.
Members and staff of NPMs need to be personally and institutionally independent from state authorities or other institutions. That means that members and staff should serve in their personal capacity and only in the interest of the NPM. Consequently, NPM members should not act on behalf of any other stakeholders be it governmental or non-governmental institutions.
The NPM members and staff should be capable in practice to undertake their responsibilities without interference from state authorities or any other stakeholders. The NPM should set its own priorities, independent of the political agenda.
The NPM should not conduct activities or include individuals who occupy positions (or are on short-term leave from positions) that might be incompatible with the NPM mandate. Examples of such positions might include: the executive branch of government and roles in the criminal justice system or law enforcement. In other words, members should not be in a position where they end up overseeing institutions they have worked for or been a part of.
Members and staff should also be free from any personal allegiances with political figures or law enforcement personnel.
Members and staff must be personally independent and perceived as such. Therefore, if a member is acting in an impartial manner but is perceived as biased, for reasons of political affiliation or for a position occupied, this could seriously compromise the work of the NPM.
Members and staff should be protected from any state intervention or external interference in their work and enjoy security of tenure. This will help to guarantee the independence of their actions without consideration or fear of losing their jobs. They should also be protected during and after the end of their mandate against any reprisals relating to actions taken in the course of their NPM work.
In this regard, the SPT guidelines state that “the State should ensure the independence of the NPM by not appointing to it members who hold positions which could raise questions of conflicts of interest […] Members of NPMs should likewise ensure that they do not hold or acquire positions which raise questions of conflicts of interest.”
Methodological Skills:
Personal Characteristics:
According to article 18.2 of the OPCAT, states parties “shall strive for a gender balance and adequate representation of ethnic and minority groups in the country.”
The gender balance and representation of different ethnic and socio-cultural groups within the NPM may increase its capacity to understand the specific needs of groups in situations of vulnerability in detention and, consequently, to make appropriate recommendations. Depending on the NPM model, this balance should be fulfilled and complemented in the designation of both members and staff.
Members should also have a diverse understanding of specific groups in detention (such as socio-cultural and ethnic minorities) and be culturally sensitive.
Because of the work they do and the information to which they have access, both members and staff should have immunity from any threats or influence related to their work.
Staff conducting visits to places of detention should equally enjoy guarantees against intimidation and attempts to hinder their work.
For an NPM to be effective, the members and staff must have relevant expertise. In addition, the NPM, as an institution, should gather, collectively, the required variety and balance of different fields of professional knowledge and practical experience that enable it to effectively perform its mandate.
Some professional backgrounds are particularly relevant to NPM work, including:
The members’ expertise can be supplemented by a pool of experts to accompany their work.
As the SPT guidelines state, “members of the NPM should collectively have the expertise and experience necessary for its effective functioning […] the NPM should ensure that its staff have between them the diversity of background, capabilities and professional knowledge necessary to enable it to properly fulfil its NPM mandate. This should include, inter alia, relevant legal and health-care expertise.”
NPM staff should be institutionally and personally independent from state authorities. Although it is not an ideal situation, in some cases (particularly for budgetary reasons) civil servants are seconded to work for the NPM to provide support and to reduce costs. In this situation, the staff should be entirely dedicated to NPM work, and should not report to their ministry or department of origin. Confidentiality of information acquired in their capacity as NPM staff should be respected during and after their tenure.
A guarantee of the independence of seconded staff could be to ensure that secondments are only long-term. During the secondment, the staff should only be accountable to the NPM. Furthermore, the seconded member of staff should be selected following a clear, transparent, merit-based process and at the discretion of NPM members.
In any case, leadership and decision-making positions in the NPM should not be help by seconded staff.
NPMs are usually made up of both members and staff. Members are appointed following a selection process or procedure (either in parliament, through a selection commission, or by governmental appointment). Depending on the NPM model, the number of members could vary between one (for example, ombuds institutions) and in some cases reaches more than a dozen members (as is the case among some new specialised institutions).
Often, the law establishing the NPM includes the composition of members and the professional experience and skills required. As stated in article 18.2 of the OPCAT “The States Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the experts of the national preventive mechanism have the required capabilities and professional knowledge.” Staff are then recruited, reallocated or seconded by members, depending on the NPM model.
Members are appointed for a defined term of office (which may or may not be renewable), while staff are permanent and represent a guarantee of institutional sustainability and stability. On the other hand, Staff are recruited (depending on the NPM model), once the NPM is established, to support members in implementing the preventive mandate or for administrative purposes. In both cases, the NPM should have the authority to choose and employ its own staff based on requirements and criteria it alone determines. Sufficient human resources permit the NPM to be functionally independent.
There are some specificities related to the composition of NPMs and the distinction between the role of members and staff. For example, staff carry out the NPM’s mandate in cases where ombuds institutions are designated as NPMs. In contrast, in some new specialised institutions, the mandate is carried out primarily by the members. Some NPMs also appoint a secretary general from among their members, while for others this position is part of the secretariat (which may help to preserve institutional memory).
Members work either full-time or part-time, according to the law and/or the internal rules of the NPM and taking into consideration the scope of mandate. Both full time and part-time members should be paid adequately for their work. This should be considered while drafting the NPM’s budget.
Both members and staff are bound by the principles of confidentiality of personal information, do no harm, and non-discrimination. Therefore, they should have the same immunities against reprisals or any potential obstacles to the conduct of their preventive work.