After depositing the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) in November 2025, Colombia must establish a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) within at least one year. The experience of Latin America—where most countries that have ratified the OPCAT already have mechanisms in place—offers valuable lessons on the different institutional models, their strengths and the challenges they face over time.
In this context, the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), together with the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), carried out an academic visit to Bogotá from 25 to 27 March 2026 to engage with authorities, academia and civil society on the establishment of the mechanism. The exchange aimed to share regional experiences and contribute to the design of a solid, independent mechanism adapted to the Colombian context.
The OPCAT sets out minimum requirements for these mechanisms: functional independence, staff with relevant expertise, sufficient resources, and powers to visit places of deprivation of liberty and make recommendations. However, regional experience shows that the formal creation of a mechanism is only the first step. Political, institutional and administrative factors influence how these bodies operate over time, as illustrated by cases in the region where mechanisms have been reformed either to strengthen—or to limit—their independence.
For the Colombian mechanism to be effective and sustainable, it is essential to consider several additional elements from the outset.
Additional elements
Beyond the minimum requirements established by OPCAT, comparative experience in the region suggests considering additional elements that can strengthen both the establishment and the functioning of a preventive mechanism.
Looking at the regional context
Latin America is once again experiencing a period of tougher security policies and an expansion in the use of the criminal justice system as a response to social and public security challenges. In several countries, trends include a steady increase in prison populations, the creation or expansion of maximum-security regimes, proposals to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and the expansion of the powers of security forces—for example regarding the use of more lethal weapons and more flexible frameworks governing the use of force.
In this context, a preventive mechanism may face more complex challenges, such as securing effective access to high-security facilities, monitoring new forms of deprivation of liberty, and sustaining technical recommendations in political environments where punitive approaches are strengthened over preventive ones. Consequently, it is important to ensure that mechanisms are technically robust and capable of acting preventively in increasingly demanding institutional environments.
Strengthening social participation—and sustaining it over time
The APT recommends that discussions on the establishment of a national preventive mechanism include the broadest possible range of actors: public authorities, civil society, national human rights institutions, members of parliament and academia, among others. However, recent experience in the region shows that although civil society participation is often provided for in law, it is rarely maintained in a sustained and meaningful way in practice.
For this reason, social participation should be active from the creation of the mechanism and continue throughout its functioning. This may take the form of advisory councils, technical committees, transparent appointment processes and permanent spaces for dialogue with civil society and academia. It is also essential to incorporate the voices of people who have experienced deprivation of liberty—such as those who have been in prison, police custody or mental health institutions—and their families, whose experiences provide direct insight into the risks present in these environments. Ultimately, this participation is not only good institutional practice but also a human right.
Considering the territorial dimension
In countries with significant local and regional differences and with multiple types of places of deprivation of liberty, it is essential to consider the territorial dimension of the work carried out by preventive mechanisms. Prevention requires a presence—or at least the capacity to monitor—in different contexts across a country, as well as the ability to visit a variety of detention settings. Designing mechanisms that can operate in a decentralised manner or through territorial networks is therefore key to achieving effective geographical coverage and representation.
Remembering administrative issues
Many of the challenges currently faced by mechanisms relate to administrative issues, such as budgeting, special insurance arrangements due to the nature of the work, online working arrangements, and how to manage staffing schemes in relation to night-time monitoring visits, among others. The real functioning of a mechanism depends largely on these administrative and operational aspects.
Adequate budget allocations—independent of international cooperation—logistical capacity to carry out visits and clear internal procedures for the selection of those who will form part of the mechanism are elements that determine the legitimacy of a monitoring body. In many cases, these challenges prove to be just as significant as the legal debates surrounding institutional design.
Balancing reactive and preventive approaches
One of the permanent challenges for preventive mechanisms is to maintain their preventive nature. This is, in fact, one of the most frequently raised questions in discussions on the prevention of torture in the region: to what extent should a mechanism become involved in responding to specific cases, and to what extent should it focus on its preventive mandate?
In contexts where there are constant allegations of human rights violations—or where institutions responsible for the defence and promotion of these rights are weak—pressure often arises for the mechanism to take on investigative roles or respond immediately to individual cases. This tension is significant, as social and political expectations often push the mechanism towards addressing urgent situations, particularly when other state bodies fail to respond effectively.
At the same time, the way each country manages the relationship between reactive and preventive approaches reflects its own institutional context and sovereign decisions regarding the design of its oversight mechanisms. There is no single model applicable to all contexts. However, effective coordination with institutions responsible for investigating and sanctioning human rights violations is indispensable.
In this regard, cooperation with prosecutors’ offices, national human rights institutions, internal oversight bodies and other competent entities is important to ensure that cases in which there are indications of torture or ill-treatment can be appropriately addressed or referred.
The core mandate of preventive mechanisms lies in identifying structural risks, making recommendations and contributing to the transformation of institutional practices that may generate torture or ill-treatment. Prevention involves observing patterns, detention conditions, norms and practices that, if left unaddressed, may lead to systematic abuses.
It should also be remembered that the individuals who form part of these mechanisms are public servants and, in many Latin American legal systems, have the obligation to report any human rights violations they become aware of in the exercise of their duties. Therefore, rather than an absolute dichotomy between reactive and preventive roles, the challenge lies in finding a balance that preserves the preventive focus of the mechanism while also contributing to the activation of appropriate institutional channels when there are indications of torture or ill-treatment.
Sustaining independence
Regional experience demonstrates that independence in the exercise of a mechanism’s mandate is not guaranteed solely at the moment of its creation. Legislative changes, institutional reforms or political transformations may affect—or strengthen—its independence over time. For this reason, the strengthening of functional, operational, decision-making and financial independence must be understood as a continuous process requiring institutional vigilance and support from a range of actors.
Keeping OPCAT on the agenda
In public administrations characterised by frequent staff turnover and political transitions, it is essential to maintain a constant reminder of what the ratification of the Convention against Torture—and particularly OPCAT—entails. Over time, and especially with changes in public officials, there is a risk that institutional memory of the State’s international commitments may fade.
For this reason, discussing OPCAT should not be limited to the moment of its ratification or to the formal creation of the preventive mechanism. It represents an ongoing commitment that must be reiterated, explained and defended within State institutions. Keeping this conversation alive helps reinforce the understanding that preventing torture is a continuous international obligation, rather than a goal that ends with the adoption of a law.
