The Jewel in the Crown and Its Three Guardians: Independence of National Preventive Mechanisms Under the Optional Protocol to the UN Torture Convention

2021

Punishment & Society

Despite the increasing focus on prison inspection and monitoring bodies in international law and policy, little is known about their operations in practice. This study contributes to fill this gap by examining how countries of the European Union (EU) have responded to these demands, paying special attention to one of the central tasks of these bodies: the making of recommendations. To do so, we used data from the first EU-wide survey of prison oversight bodies, with responses from all Member States. Our findings reveal that recommendations-making is a key part of the work of these bodies. They also provide evidences that the approach to dialogue between these bodies and prison authorities advocated in the legislation is taking place on the ground.

Section: The Operation Of Prison Inspection and Monitoring Bodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rights protection in prisons: Understanding recommendations-making by prison inspection and monitoring bodies in the European Union

Aizpurúa

2021

Punishment & Society

“…This gap in our understanding is significant, as it means we are missing opportunities to learn about how correctional oversight is working and how it could work more effectively. There are several honourable exceptions to the general lack of literature on correctional oversight, including legal analyses and assessments of OPCAT (Bicknell et al, 2018; Bicknell and Evans, 2017; Evans and Morgan, 1998; Morgan and Evans, 1999; Murray et al, 2011; Steinerte, 2014), and work examining the types of oversight structures in US states (Deitch, 2010). This scholarship provides an invaluable lens by which to understand oversight structures, but there remains a need to explore the practical operation of correctional oversight bodies.…”

Section: Background and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even in circumstances where independence is guaranteed in statute, it may be wholly undermined by inadequate resourcing of the work which the oversight body can do. Such is the importance of independence to the work of NPMs, that Steinerte (2014) has described it as the ‘jewel in the crown’ under OPCAT. Steinerte (2014) points to the importance of financial independence for NPMs, describing it as a ‘crucial factor that has a direct bearing upon the ability of an NPM to function independently and effectively’ (p. 15).…”

Section: Correctional Oversight and The Question Of Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correctional oversight bodies’ resources and protections across the European Union: Are their hands tied?

Aizpurúa

Criminology & Criminal Justice

2021

Oversight bodies play a critical role in upholding human rights standards in prison. Several international instruments require states to establish independent forms of prison oversight and to give them the powers they need to conduct their work. Resources are central to the effectiveness and independence of oversight bodies. Of equal importance is the ability of prison oversight bodies to offer protections against reprisals for those who choose to speak to them and for their own staff. In this article, we provide results from the first survey of prison oversight bodies in the European Union and the United Kingdom, focusing on the resources and protections which prison oversight bodies in these states have to enable them to conduct their work. Our results suggest the need to strengthen the financial independence of prison oversight bodies, with slightly less than half of the bodies having their own budget to monitor prisons. Bodies which had their own budgets had a greater number of staff members and a greater variety of professional backgrounds among their members, likely influencing their ability to fulfil their mandate. Our results also point to the need to develop further protection mechanisms against reprisals for those who speak with inspectors as well as for staff from prison oversight bodies.

“…Despite its name, here we use the term ‘monitoring’ when describing its activities, because the Inspector of Prisons is external to the prison system and is, under law, independent of it. This is not to say that the independence of the Inspector of Prisons should be accepted uncritically; its functional independence is called into question by the fact that the Inspector relies on the Department of Justice for funding, which is not uncommon for prison oversight bodies (Steinerte, 2014). As Steinerte shows, the independence of oversight bodies generally should be interrogated closely in light of the many ways in which prison oversight bodies rely on the agencies they are designed to oversee, for example for human or other resources.…”

Section: Inspection and Monitoring Of Prisons: Defining The Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time, we see the interesting perspective emerging that European and United Nations’ monitoring mechanisms are becoming ‘tighter’ forms of control of states (Cliquennois and Snacken, 2018), placing increasingly onerous obligations on states and subjecting them to more scrutiny. There has also been a large amount of work concerning the legal implications of OPCAT, and a great deal of scholarly attention paid to the interpretation and application of OPCAT in domestic legal systems (Steinerte, 2014; Murray et al, 2011).…”

Section: Inspection and Monitoring Bodies In Practice: How Are Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiencing human rights protections in prisons: The case of prison monitoring in Ireland

Valk

European Journal of Criminology

2020

The protection of human rights in prison gives rise to unique challenges. The power differentials and dynamics involved, the need to balance considerations of security with those of dignity, and the lack of openness to the outside world mean that the implementation of human rights principles takes on a particular importance in these environments. International human rights law has increasingly emphasized the importance of external oversight of prisons as a way to prevent torture and ill-treatment and to uphold fundamental rights more generally. Although the monitoring of prisons is now quite well established as a principle of European and international human rights provisions, we know surprisingly little about how people in prison experience and understand monitoring bodies. This gap in our understanding is part of a wider lack of literature on how prisoners experience their rights and protections of their rights. This article addresses that gap a, reporting on qualitative findings from a study with people in prison in Ireland on their views and perceptions of a monitoring body: the Inspector of Prisons. The article finds evidence of a lack of awareness of, and a deficit of trust in, monitoring. However, this picture is complex, with people in prison also viewing the concept of monitoring as a good way to protect rights, believing that the visibility of monitors, clarity in their role and powers, and ensuring that a variety of voices are heard by monitoring bodies are important elements of a good system of prison oversight.