Funding torture prevention monitoring bodies: An explainer

“Around the world, NPM budgets are tiny percentages of overall prison and detention budgets – less than a fraction of a percent” and yet their financial independence is far from guaranteed. In this blog, Ben Buckland from the Association for the Prevention of Torture examines the elements of financial independence for NPMs, and trends and challenges faced by these essential torture prevention bodies.

Unlike most other instruments of international law, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) does not create new legal obligations. Rather, it helps states to fulfil their existing obligations to prevent torture, through the establishment of national preventive mechanisms (NPMs), with the power to make regular and unannounced visits to all places where people are deprived of liberty. NPMs play a key role in preventing torture – but their work cannot happen from behind a desk, NPMs must visit places of detention and be present in the places they oversee.

This involves significant costs.  

These costs include salaries and fees for staff and external experts, with the diverse expertise that is required to fully assess what is happening in prisons, psychiatric hospitals and the different places where people are deprived of liberty. They also include travel and accommodation for NPM teams to be able to spend time in different, often remote, regions of the country conducting visits that may take anywhere from one day to two weeks. NPMs also need funding for day-to-day operations, including interpretation and translation, office facilities, equipment, communications, publications and training. 

Funding is at the heart of NPM independence and a central part of states’ legal obligations to prevent torture. The OPCAT requires that NPMs are independent and that “necessary resources for the functioning of the national preventive mechanisms” are made available. 

“who funds you?”

Without financial independence NPMs face barriers in fulfilling their mandates. NPMs that receive their funding from the same source as the detaining authorities, or funding that is unpredictable or comes with strings attached, may be less able to make independent, strategic decisions about their work. Lack of independence may also impact how they are perceived and whether they are trusted by those they interact with, including detainees – some NPMs even report being asked “who funds you?” during interviews.  

In addition to the question of where their funding comes from, financial independence is also about the fact that NPMs need enough resources and the power to decide how to use them. Without adequate resources, NPMs will be unable to independently decide on their strategy or carry out their operational plan.  

Financial independence includes several elements that are worth going into in more detail.  

The first element of independence is the fact that NPMs should take part in their own budget process. This is a complex issue and governments determine their budgets according to their own resources and priorities. Nevertheless, it is good practice for NPMs for to be able to prepare their own budgets on the basis of their strategic and operational plans, which are then submitted directly (or as part of the overall institutional budget for NPMs that are part of bigger institutions) to the relevant authority and/or the parliament. 

The second element is that NPMs should have adequate resources for carrying out their mandates (including all of the costs described above). What is considered adequate will always be difficult to agree on but will depend on what is in the NPM strategy and operational plan and will also be likely to change over time.  

The third element is that, once they receive their budget, NPMs should be given control over spending priorities and use of funds, without additional restrictions that might unduly affect their independence.  

NPM budgets should be protected from arbitrary reductions

A fourth element of independence is predictability and the fact that NPM budgets should be protected from arbitrary reductions from one year to the next. Preventive work is long term and focused on addressing risk factors and root causes at the levels of laws, practices and institutions. Many of these changes take years to achieve, which makes adequate and stable budgets essential if NPMs are to have a team in place who can follow-up on issues and contribute to change over time. Stability allows NPMs to plan their work and not be wary of financial reprisals should their work displease the government of the day. When faced with difficult circumstances, state budgets may sometimes have to be reduced. In such circumstances, at a minimum, any NPM budget reduction should not be out of proportion to other core state functions. A good example of predictability comes from Armenia, where the law specifies that the NPM budget cannot be less than the year before, allowing the institution to plan with confidence.   

Because state budgets in many countries do not include adequate provision for many government functions, it may also be important for NPM independence that they be permitted to receive additional funding from external donors, including the United Nations, the EU and other states. At a minimum, NPMs should always be able to apply to and receive funding from the OPCAT Special Fund to enable them to implement specific projects, such as educational programmes or follow-up on the implementation of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture recommendations. 

more and more new NPMs are established by designating existing oversight bodies

While the number of NPMs around the world is steadily increasing, (now there are 77 operating) more and more new NPMs are established by designating existing oversight bodies – often national human rights institutions (NHRIs). Although in principle this is not a concern, a worrying trend, however, is that many of these institutions are designated without significant (or in some cases any) new or additional resources. Given what we know about the resources needed for NPM operational work, this is very problematic, both for the ability of the NPM to do its work but also because of the additional pressures that this may place on existing institutional budgets and priorities. While the percentage of an NHRI budget that goes to NPM activities will and should vary, depending on the context, one good practice is found in the law of the NHRI of Lebanon, which includes a provision stating that the NHRI budget shall include a specific line for the NPM, totalling no less than 25% of the total budget of the institution.  

Elsewhere, NPMs that did have funding have seen their budgets come under attack by governments wishing to retaliate against them. This was recently the case in Brazil for example, where the government eliminated funding for NPM member compensation – a decision that was only later overturned by the courts after significant civil society advocacy, including from the APT. Even in places where governments are supportive of NPMs’ mandates, steep price inflation, including on fuel, is placing pressure on already tight NPM budgets.  

NPM work does not just happen in an office

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic created new demands on NPM budgets. For some, this meant visiting quarantine and isolation centres – places that were not originally part of their plans or budgets. While for others, it meant additional and unforeseen spending on gloves, masks, and new training to be able to visit traditional places safely.  

In conclusion, NPM work does not just happen in an office. Torture prevention means being present in places of deprivation of liberty and holding regular dialogue with authorities and relevant stakeholders. At heart, it comes down to the original idea of APT’s founder, Jean-Jacques Gautier: that opening closed institutions to an outside gaze will have a preventive effect. Everything else flows from this basic work of visits. And this work is resource intensive and requires engagement over the long term. Changing laws, changing policies and complex practices: all of this takes time and persistence. Without stable NPM budgets, none of it is possible. Around the world, NPM budgets are tiny percentages of overall prison and detention budgets – less than a fraction of a percent – but the work they do benefits everyone: detainees and their relatives, the authorities, and society as a whole. Their work has never been more urgent.  

Photo credit: www.JobsForFelonsHub.com