Monitoring for human rights in
places of detention:
NPMs and IMBs – how effective are
they in securing human rights?
An ARC-funded project
Cambridge University, 18 May 2011
Dr Bronwyn Naylor, Monash University
Australia
The question
• In what ways can the rights of people in
detention be protected?
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Human rights as a framework
Sources of rights
Reactive approaches
Proactive approaches
Monitoring mechanisms
Human rights as a framework
• Judeo-Christian values; Bills of Rights
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
– Human Dignity
– Right to life and liberty
– Freedom from torture or cruel, unhuman or
degrading treatment of punishment
– Equal treatment
– No arbitrary interference with privacy, family life
...
Sources of rights
• UN ICCPR (1976)
• UN Convention against Torture ... (1987)
• European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
– UK Human Rights Act 1998
• European Convention for the Prevention of
Torture ... (2002)
• UN Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners
ICCPR
Article 7
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. …
Article 10(1)
• All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated
with humanity and with respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person.
Article 10(3)
• The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of
prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their
reformation and social rehabilitation….
Reactive approaches - enforcement
• ICCPR – Human Rights Committee
• European Convention – European Court for
Human Rights
• HRA – adopts European Convention; UK and
European courts
Reactive approaches – complaints
• Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
• Ombudsman (Australia)
• Independent Visitor schemes
Proactive approaches - prevention
• Monitoring
• Community accountability
• Aims:
– to discover and expose breaches;
– to deter breaches;
– to achieve change.
Taxonomy of monitoring mechanisms
•
•
•
•
•
External/internal
Independent/ not independent
Complaints-focussed
Audit-compliance focussed
‘Human rights’ criteria vs values/ or ‘good
governance’ criteria
• Sector-specific vs generalist
• Formal vs voluntary/informal
Internal/external bodies
• Internal body – working knowledge; access to
policy development; can negotiate
• BUT
• May be co-opted/ captured; goals of
organisation may override goals of
monitoring; limited public reporting
Formal external monitoring bodies(1)
Domestic
• UK: HM Inspectorate of Prisons
• WA: Office of the Inspector of Custodial
Services
Regional
• Committee for the Prevention of Torture
(under ECPT)
Effective external monitoring bodies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Authority? Powers?
Independence
Access
Expertise
Impartiality
Enforcement
– ‘pressure of example’
– Unannounced/ Announced visits: ‘we tend to smell a
lot of fresh paint ...’ (Casales 2006)
Formal external monitoring bodies(2)
International
• UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(1987)
• OPCAT – Optional Protocol to the Convention
against Torture (2006)
– ‘places of detention’
• NPM (National Preventive Mechanism)
– UK: 18 existing bodies; Inspector of Prisons Convenor.
• SPT (Subcommittee for Prevention of Torture)
Informal monitoring bodies
• Accountability
• Permeability to ‘civil society’
- Amnesty International
- Red Cross
- Liberty
- Community Visitors
- Community groups/ advocates
- ….
Informal external monitoring
• Visiting Committees to Prisons - from Quaker
initiatives C18
• Independent Monitoring Boards (UK)
– ‘.. Bring with them the values of the outside world
to the closed and deformed world of the prison…
the eyes and ears from the outside’ (Stern 2006)
• Religious and community groups – Brigidine
Asylum Seeker Project (Aust)
• High Court case
Conclusions
• In what ways can the rights of people in
detention be protected by monitoring
approaches?
• Possible interconnecting network of methods?
• Political, social, cultural contexts