A seminar bringing together local and international experts has discussed the different models that Australia could adopt to meet its obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT).

The Australian Government signed the OPCAT in May this year and, following ratification of the treaty, is required to establish an independent national body, known as a National Preventive Mechanism, to undertake regular, unannounced visits to places of detention.

The seminar, held in Sydney on 25 November, was organised by the Australian Human Rights Commission, in partnership with the the APF and the Association for the Prevention of Torture.

It brought together approximately 60 participants, including representatives from state and federal agencies, NGOs, academics and the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Silvia Casale, former Chair of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, provided an overview of the requirements of the OPCAT and how the Subcommittee can support the establishment and work of national monitoring bodies.

In addition, Susan Biggs, from the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, spoke about her country’s experience of establishing a ‘mixed model’ National Preventive Mechanism, which involves a number of independent organisations undertaking visits and is coordinated by the Commission.

Under the OPCAT, a National Preventive Mechanism has the legal authority to visit, inspect and hold private interviews with people detained in places such as prisons, juvenile detention institutions, police stations, locked psychiatric wards and immigration detention centres.

These powers also extend to prisoner transport, court security, military detention facilities and aged care hostels where residents are detained involuntarily.

Report

A report prepared for the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2008 found that there were very few agencies in Australia that carry out these functions in a manner that complies with the OPCAT.

“This means that the creation of an OPCAT-compliant system will require ground up review and not just a ‘tweaking’ of existing arrangements,” the report’s authors noted.

However, they also said that in some areas (including prisons, juvenile detention facilities, psychiatric wards, immigration detention centres, military detention facilities, places of detention operated by national intelligence services and old people’s homes) there were agencies whose statutory responsibilities and operational capacity could be bolstered to meet OPCAT criteria.

“These agencies are often of relatively recent development. The area that appears to have consistently lagged behind is police lock-ups and police stations,” the report found.

The report recommended that Australia, as a federal State, adopt a ‘mixed model’, where the national government “creates and empowers a national coordinating NPM and the States and Territories create subsidiary NPMs to cover places of detention within their own jurisdictional authority.”

Criminalising torture

Earlier this month, the Commission described the introduction of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009, as a landmark piece of legislation in Australia’s human rights protection regime.

Commission President Cathy Branson QC, said the legislation further ensured that Australia was meeting its international obligations.

“The Australian Human Rights Commission welcomes the introduction of a specific offence of torture in to the Commonwealth Criminal Code,” she said.

Find out more

• Implementing the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture: Options for Australia (2008): A report to the Australian Human Rights Commission
• OPCAT Ratification Status; produced by the Association for the Prevention of Torture
• Frequently Asked Questions about OPCAT; produced by the Association for the Prevention of Torture