Rights protection in prisons: Understanding recommendations-making by prison inspection and monitoring bodies in the European Union
| DOI | 10.1177/14624745211020818 |
| Published date | 01 October 2021 |
| Author | Eva Aizpurua,Mary Rogan |
| Date | 01 October 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Rights protection in
prisons: Understanding
recommendations-
making by prison
inspection and
monitoring bodies in
the European Union
Eva Aizpurua and Mary Rogan
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Despite the increasing focus on prison inspection and monitoring bodies in interna-
tional 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.
Keywords
cross-cultural research, human rights, inspection, monitoring, oversight, prison, survey
research
Corresponding author:
Eva Aizpurua, Trinity Research in Social Sciences (TRiSS), 6th Floor Sutherland Centre, Arts Building, Trinity
College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Email: Eva.Aizpurua@city.ac.uk
Punishment & Society
!The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14624745211020818
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
2021, Vol. 23(4) 455–477
The independent oversight of prisons by inspection and monitoring bodies
1
can
play an important role in preventing breaches of human rights in places which are
far from public view. As Liebling and Crewe (2013: 286) note, ‘the prison is a sui
generis institution, uniquely liable to abuses and distortion of power’. In recent
decades, prison inspection and monitoring has become increasingly visible in
efforts to strengthen the frameworks for protecting human rights in places of
detention. In this regard, the Optional Protocol to the United Nations
Convention against Torture (OPCAT) (UN General Assembly, 2003) was a
major development in the oversight of prisons globally. OPCAT is based on the
premise that regular visits to places of detention by independent bodies can sup-
port the prevention of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment.
Central to OPCAT is the concept of ‘National Preventive Mechanisms’ (NPM),
which refers to national bodies with the power and remit to visit places where
people are deprived of their liberty. The designation or establishment of NPMs is a
requirement of all states parties who have signed and ratified OPCAT. Other
international human rights instruments require states to create independent
bodies at the domestic level to inspect and monitor prisons. In fact, there has
been a marked increase in the attention given to prison oversight within interna-
tional human rights standards in recent years. This attention is evident in the
conclusion of OPCAT itself, as well as the increased powers provided to prison
oversight bodies in recent revisions to human rights instruments concerning pris-
ons. The original United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners, for example, contained a requirement on states to establish prison
inspection bodies. The wide-ranging 2015 revisions to those rules, known as the
Mandela Rules, continue this obligation on states to set up independent forms of
prison inspection, and to provide those bodies with powers of access and
information-gathering (UN General Assembly, 2015). The European Prison
Rules (EPR) also require Council of Europe member states to establish indepen-
dent prison inspection bodies (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, 2020).
Supranational forms of prison monitoring also exist, with the Council of
Europe having the longest history in this field through the European Committee
for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), which came into operation in 1989 (Council
of Europe, 1987). OPCAT created the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), which has
the power to visit places of detention within states party to the Convention
(Murray et al., 2011) and it also has an advisory role to NPMs. Both these
bodies have the power to enter places where people are deprived of their liberty,
speak to detainees and staff of their choice in confidence, and obtain documents
and records (Article 8(d) European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 14(2)(b) OPCAT).
States are now under clear obligations from international and regional human
rights law to establish independent inspection and monitoring bodies for prisons.
These obligations reflect an increasing recognition of the importance of a
456 Punishment & Society 23(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial