: Oversight and accountability of places of detention

Oversight and accountability of places of detention

Phil Lynch, Ben Schokman and Rachel Ball
Human Rights

Australia has moved a step closer to ensuring independent monitoring, inspection and oversight of places of detention. On 28 February 2012, the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, and then Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Craig Emerson, tabled a National Interest Analysis (‘NIA’) on Australia’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The NIA has been referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for inquiry and report as to the national interest in ratification.

The Optional Protocol aims to prevent ill treatment and promote humane conditions by establishing systems for independent monitoring and inspection of all places of detention. At the national level, it requires that countries establish what is known as a ‘national preventative mechanism’, or NPM. An NPM is an independent body with a mandate to conduct both announced and unannounced visits to places of detention, to make recommendations to prevent ill treatment and improve conditions, and to report publicly on its findings and views.

At the international level, the Optional Protocol establishes an independent committee of experts, the UN Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture, with a mandate to carry out country missions to monitor deprivations of liberty.

The whole system is premised on the evidence and experience that external scrutiny of places of detention can prevent and redress torture and other forms of ill treatment. By making places of detention more open, transparent and accountable, it helps to ensure that persons deprived of liberty – whether people with psychiatric illness, prisoners, people with disability or asylum seekers – are treated with basic dignity and respect.

Australia signed the Optional Protocol in May 2009. Since that time, progress on ratification and implementation has been slow, with wrangling between the states and the Commonwealth about who is to foot the bill for detention monitoring and oversight. This is despite international evidence as to the very high social and economic costs of failing to prevent and redress ill-treatment.

Now that the NIA has been tabled, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments should all prioritise ratification and implementation of the Optional Protocol. Any further delay in the prevention of ill-treatment has intolerable social and economic costs and is simply not an option.

PHIL LYNCH, BEN SCHOKMAN and RACHEL BALL of the Human Rights Law Centre

(2012) 37(2) AltLJ 132
You are here: Home News & Views DownUnderAllOver DUAO - Vol 37(2) Oversight and accountability of places of detention

Keep in Touch

Twitter Icon
Follow Alt Law Journal on Facebook


Monash University Logo