1. 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

2. The question In what ways can the rights of people in detention be protected?

3. Outline Human rights as a framework Sources of rights Reactive approaches Proactive approaches Monitoring mechanisms

4. 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...

5. 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

6. 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….

7. Reactive approaches - enforcement ICCPR – Human Rights Committee European Convention – European Court for Human Rights HRA – adopts European Convention; UK and European courts

8. Reactive approaches – complaints Prisons and Probation Ombudsman Ombudsman (Australia) Independent Visitor schemes

9. Proactive approaches - prevention Monitoring Community accountability Aims: – to discover and expose breaches; – to deter breaches; – to achieve change.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. Informal monitoring bodies Accountability Permeability to ‘civil society’ - Amnesty International - Red Cross - Liberty - Community Visitors - Community groups/ advocates - ….

16. 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

17. 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