75 Is Not A Lucky Number – Global Affairs Canada’s ATIP Response

Earlier this week the Canada OPCAT Project received an initial response from Global Affairs Canada concerning its latest Access to Information request. A response of sorts perhaps!

To quickly recap, the Canada OPCAT Project filed an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request on 23 December 2019 requesting information from Global Affairs Canada about the scope of its supposedly ongoing OPCAT ratification consultation process with Canadian civil society and Indigenous groups throughout 2019. You can find out more here.

During its examination by the UN Committee against Torture in Geneva in November 2018 Canada stated publicly that it would endeavor to consult with Canadian civil society on the important human rights topic of OPCAT ratification.

Alan Levine, Open or Closed (2012).

In an official response dated 13 January 2020 the Canada OPCAT Project was informed the following:

“In accordance with paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Act [Access to Information Act], an extension of up to 45 days beyond the original statutory limit is required since meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the Department.”

In a nutshell, Global Affairs Canada has given itself up to 75 additional days (30 + 45) to respond to the above request about Canada’s OPCAT consultation process. Let us be clear – 75 days is a more than a fifth of a year!

How might one interpret this seemingly 75-day hesitancy?

  • Global Affairs Canada is exceedingly busy;
  • The department is under-staffed;
  • Global Affairs Canada has an abundance of OPCAT consultation-related information to sift through and possibly redact in order to fully respond to the information request;
  • ATIP requests are generally low on the department’s list of priorities, but it will comply with the law by requesting a 75-day response time;
  • Or possibly a mixture of all of the above.

Readers can make their own minds up, but we would tend to shift towards the lower end of the list.

Alan Levine, Sorry We Are Not Open (2012)

If an uncomfortable truth be told, if Global Affairs Canada as the lead agency on the OPCAT just occasionally provided updates about Canada’s OPCAT ratification process, recourse to Access to Information legislation would not be necessary.

After over 18-months of operation and after publishing 120-odd different articles, the Canada OPCAT Project has not been in a position to publish a single news item about the ratification of the OPCAT in Canada based on information unilaterally and voluntarily placed into the public domain by a department of the Canadian Government, such has been the absolute paucity of publicly available information.

If the Canadian Government is willing to place on public record that the ‘Optional Protocol is no longer optional for Canada‘, then it should not be surprised that actors remain committed to holding it to its word.

Please return in early April 2020, dear readers, for Global Affairs Canada’s full ATIP response.


Read how the OPCAT might be instituted in Canada.

Find out more about the December 2019 ATIP request.

Posted by mp in Civil society, Consultation, Indigenous people, OPCAT, 0 comments

Canada’s National Travesty – Prison Indigenization

The Indigenization of Canada’s prison population has been described as being “nothing short of a national travesty.”

This highly damning indictment was advanced by Canada’s Correctional Investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger, the country’s federal prison ombudsperson, in a news release issued on 21 January 2020.

Down Under
Light in the Darkness by Drew Douglas (2007).

The Correctional Investigator stated:

“Four years ago, my Office reported that persons of Indigenous ancestry had reached 25% of the total inmate population. At that time, my Office indicated that efforts to curb over-representation were not working.  Today, sadly, I am reporting that the proportion of Indigenous people behind bars has now surpassed 30%.”

In the news release Dr. Zinger suggests that surpassing the 30% mark indicates a deepening Indigenization of Canada’s correctional system. 

In the absence of any domestic OPCAT monitoring body in Canada, the Correctional Investigator plays a vital role in monitoring the treatment and conditions of federal prisoners in the country. Dr. Zinger has repeatedly called on Canada to sign and ratify the OPCAT.

Shockingly, the Correctional Investigator stressed that the numbers are even more troubling for Indigenous women, who now account for 42% of the women prisoner population in Canada, despite just forming a small percentage of the overall population. He added that the federal prison service seems impervious to change and unresponsive to the needs, histories and social realities behind high rates of Indigenous offending.

What is more, the experiences of many Indigenous persons in federal facilities are mostly far from positive, rehabilitative episodes.

It was observed that year after year, the Office of the Correctional Investigator has documented that Indigenous prisoners are disproportionately classified and placed in maximum security institutions, over-represented in use of force and self-injurious incidents, and historically, were more likely to be placed and held longer in segregation units.

Moreover, compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts, Indigenous offenders serve a higher proportion of their sentence behind bars before being granted parole, the press article stated.

Another key Canadian human rights actor, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, threw its full weight behind the federal ombudsperson’s highly critical findings. Marie-Claude Landry, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, underlined the following in a press statement issued the same day:

“The Commission is deeply disturbed by the recent findings of the Office of the Correctional Investigator that the proportion of Indigenous people in federal prisons has now surpassed a staggering 30% of the total inmate population.”

“This is a national disgrace. We strongly agree with the Correctional Investigator that bold and urgent action is required to address this persistent and pressing human rights issue.”

The leading National Indigenous Organization for women, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, was equally as scathing in its condemnation. In its own response NWAC President Lorraine Whitman commented:

“It is time that Canada recognizes the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in correctional systems. These findings are a symptom of historical and current systems of colonialism, racism and sexism against First Nations, Métis, and Inuit women.”

“All levels of government need to take real action now to reduce the number of incarcerated Indigenous peoples.”

The organization also threw a spotlight on both the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ 231 Calls for Justice from 2019 and the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action from 2015. Both reports demand transformative change within Canada’s criminal justice system. 

Whether the federal Canadian authorities will muster the political will to act on these recommendations remains to be seen. Even so, the Correctional Investigator’s findings underpin the absolute importance of the need to exercise independent oversight of the country’s closed institutions, more so in the absence of an OPCAT-based National Preventive Mechanism. It can only be hoped that the federal prison estate can be pulled back from its current disastrous Indigenization trajectory.


Read the Correctional Investigator’s statement in English and French.

Learn more about Dr. Zinger’s views in support of the OPCAT.

See the statement of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in English and French.

Read the Native Women’s Association of Canada’s press release.

Explore the joint 2019 report of the Office of the Canadian Investigator and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Aging and Dying in Prison.

Posted by mp in Indigenous people, Oversight bodies, Prisons, Women prisoners, 0 comments

Places of Deprivation of Liberty and Gender – New Publication

The newly published title Places of Deprivation of Liberty and Gender will undoubtedly be of significant interest to human rights actors focusing on the situation of women in Canada’s different closed institutions. Authored by Omar Phoenix Khan and jointly published by the DCAF Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, OSCE-ODIHR and UN Women on 18 December 2019, the publication arrives as one of the latest installments in the so-called Gender and Security Toolkit.

This highly welcome resource is featured among a series of Tools and Policy Briefs issued by the said international organizations on a diversity of human rights topics, including policing and gender, justice and gender, and security sector governance, sector reform and gender.

Canadian human rights actors and detention monitors working on issues relating to the deprivation of liberty will unquestionably find the new tool both absorbing and useful. According to the introductory overview of the publication, the intended purpose of Places of Deprivation of Liberty and Gender is as follows:

“This Tool is designed to be used by all actors working in connection with people who have been deprived of their liberty. These include policy-makers, legislators, institutional managers, front-line staff, members of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others.

The main focus of the Tool is related to deprivation of liberty within criminal justice facilities, although much of the content presented here may also be relevant to deprivation of liberty in other settings, such as administrative detention, military detention centres, immigration centres and refugee camps.”

As highlighted in its opening section, the publication sets out to achieve the following objectives:

  • It outlines why integrating a gender perspective is important in closed institutions;
  • It provides a vision of what such facilities would look like if they successfully integrated a gender perspective into their policies and practices;
  • Real-life examples are offered of specific steps that have been taken to integrate such a gender perspective into places of deprivation of liberty;
  • In this same connection, practical guidance is offered to different engaged actors, including policy-makers, operational staff and civil society representatives.

For this writer, chapter 4 titled ‘Guidance for advancing gender equality within places of deprivation of liberty’ is especially illuminating, as it is replete with everyday examples of good gender-related detention practices, drawn from an array of national jurisdictions.

Moreover, the chapter’s focus on an issue close to the heart of the Canada OPCAT Project – independent oversight and monitoring – is especially welcome. In this same connection the report states:

“Organizations that provide independent scrutiny of conditions within places of deprivation of liberty and the treatment of people held therein are a vital cornerstone of any system hoping to ensure sustainable and equitable humane treatment of all such people.”

This undeniable reality is exceedingly well put by author Omar Phoenix Khan.

Solitary confinement
Cell Number 5 by Allissa Richardson (2011).

Other themes of distinct interest include the following: the need for internal oversight and data collection (as highlighted previously on this website); staff selection and ongoing training; infrastructure and accommodation; non-threatening intake and admission of detainees; transfers and searches; risk and needs assessment; healthcare; as well as visits and access to the wider community, among others.

The institutional self-assessment checklist included in chapter 5 of the tool offers an additionally practical benchmark for measuring success in integrating a gender perspective across these and others themes.  

All told, Places of Deprivation of Liberty and Gender very well complements various other useful resources currently available on gender in closed detention settings (for other materials please see under Other Resources) and consequently deserves a much closer look.


Explore Places of Deprivation of Liberty and Gender and the Gender and Security Toolkit.

Read Preventing and Addressing Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Places of Deprivation of Liberty.

See Guide to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of women prisoners: Implementation of the Bangkok Rules.

Posted by mp in Tools, Violence Against Women, Women prisoners, 0 comments

UN Disability Expert Urges OPCAT Ratification

In a recently published report the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities has called on Canada to ratify the OPCAT. In doing so, she joins an array of other UN experts and mechanisms to have urged Canada to ratify the instrument in recent years.

Following her April 2019 fact-finding mission to Canada, the UN’s top disability expert urged “… the Government of Canada to ratify the Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and to establish a national preventive mechanism.” (please see §79) This key recommendation was made in the report of the visit published on 19 December 2019.

In her report Catalina Devandas-Aguilar expressed concern about the deprivation of liberty and involuntary treatment of persons with disabilities in Canada, a wider issue of concern which was previously verbalized in a 2019 report. The UN disability expert stated:

The Special Rapporteur was informed that the number of involuntary hospitalizations was increasing. Furthermore, a significant number of persons with psychosocial disabilities cannot leave hospital due to the lack of community-based alternatives. The extensive use of seclusion and restraints, including chemical restraints, is also a concern, especially since there is no independent monitoring of mental health facilities. [see §79]

The UN Special Rapporteur further recommended that the government establish independent monitoring mechanisms at the provincial and territorial level for centres for deprivation of liberty, including hospitals and institutions [see §101e].

disability expert
Catalina Devandas-Aguilar, United Nations, Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities during A Day For All Event, 3 December 2015 – Photo / Jean-Marc Ferré

In Canada’s 14-page response to the UN Special Rapporteur’s report of the mission to Canada dated 24 December 2019, the Canadian Government did not offer any comment or provide additional information on the recommendation that Canada ratify the OPCAT.

In issuing the OPCAT recommendation, the UN disability expert joins the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women who issued this same recommendation after a country visit to Canada in 2018.


Read the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities of her April 2019 mission to Canada.

Read the response of Canada to the report.

Learn more about the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities in English and French.

Visit the UN Special Rapporteur’s Embracing Diversity website, including its section on Canada.

Posted by mp in NPMs, OPCAT, UN Special Rapporteur

Access to Information Request – Canada’s OPCAT Consultation Process 2019?

In November 2018 the UN Committee against Torture examined Canada’s seventh periodic report in Geneva, Switzerland, issuing a set of key recommendations in a document dated 21 December 2018.

Among the UN Committee’s numerous recommendations was that Canada should:

(d) Complete the process towards accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention, while introducing mechanisms to ensure the participation of civil society, indigenous groups and other stakeholders in the entire process.

Please see paragraph 21(d) of the Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Canada (UN Doc. CAT/C/CAN/CO/7) for more detailed information.

But what has happened in practice regarding the recommended consultation process with civil society, indigenous groups and other stakeholders since December 2018? The Canada OPCAT Project asked this simple question in an Access to Information and Privacy Request (ATIP Request) filed with Global Affairs Canada on 23 December 2019.

Information by Alexander Svensson (14 October 2010).

The Canada OPCAT Project lodged the following ATIP Request:

In its Concluding Observations in relation to Canada’s 7th periodic report under the UN Convention against Torture, the UN Committee against Torture recommended that Canada should:

(d) Complete the process towards accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention, while introducing mechanisms to ensure the participation of civil society, indigenous groups and other stakeholders in the entire process.

In view of this key United Nations recommendation, please provide copies of any written communications such as letters and emails with Canadian civil society organizations and National Indigenous Organizations on the question of accession by Canada to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture since 1 December 2018 to the 21 December 2019.

Please also provide copies of any backgrounders, briefing notes, presentations or other relevant documents for discussion with Canadian civil society organizations and National Indigenous Organizations on the question of Canada acceding to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture.

Upon official receipt, Global Affairs Canada has 30 calendar-days to process this request, unless it asks for an extension in order to be able to do so.

Information by Damian Gadal (1 March 2015).

Frequent visitors to the Canada OPCAT Project website will recall that our past attempts to prise open information about the OPCAT consultation process from the Federal Government have been – at best – highly unsuccessful.

An Access to Information and Privacy Request from June 2018 to obtain a copy of a Justice Canada-led legal analysis on accession to the OPCAT resulted in reams of withheld information and page-upon-page of redaction. In the overall process of analysis Justice Canada had sought detailed information in a questionnaire form from the country’s 13 provinces and territories about the potential ratification and implementation of the instrument.

A final response was elicited from Justice Canada on 29 October 2018, which provided the Canada OPCAT Project with a highly truncated and redacted copy of its OPCAT legal analysis. Of this 281 page-report some 240 pages were withheld, while a further 41 released pages were significantly redacted, offering limited insights into the on-going ratification process in the country. The Canada OPCAT Project released a critical statement about this response.

Even so, through the issuing of analogue Access to Information Requests with different provinces and territories individual responses to Justice Canada’s questions were obtained. It should be noted, however, that certain provinces blankly refused to do so, or provided highly redacted responses.

Will it be any different this time regarding the current Access to Information and Privacy Request with Global Affairs Canada? For this answer, please follow these pages closely in the coming weeks.


Find out more about Canada’s OPCAT ratification process here.

Conversely, find out more about Australia’s more open and inclusive OPCAT implementation process in this series of different articles (please click on the three preceding links).

Posted by mp in Consultation, OPCAT, Ratification

More Essential Christmas Reading – The UNCAT & its Optional Protocol

Christmas really did come early this year – very early.

Who would have thought that the second edition of the key publication, The United Nations Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol: A Commentary would ever be made available free-of-charge as an open source document? The book currently retails at over 400 CDN, but you can access an electronic version for free (by clicking on the Open Access icon on the top right of the screen at the following link). Its editors Manfred Nowak, Moritz Birk and Guiliana Monina as well as the publishers have our immense thanks!

Flabbergasted? Entirely.

Originally published by Oxford University Press in 2008, this key reference work on the UN Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol now has updated sections, including on the implementation of the OPCAT and the operation of NPMs in practice. The publication is a veritable goldmine for countries like Canada which have yet to ratify the OPCAT and might require an authoritative account of the instrument’s main articles.

For the record, while Professor Nowak et al edited and wrote much of this volume, the majority of the 300-odd pages in the section of the book focusing on the OPCAT were penned by Kerstin Buchinger and Stephanie Krisper. Both writers have been engaged in the activities of the Austrian NPM, the Austrian Ombudsman Board, so have experienced NPM work at first hand.

Over a decade ago this Canada OPCAT Project writer was only ever able to read the first edition of this fantastic tome, as Professor Nowak had very kindly presented a copy as a gift to the Association for the Prevention of Torture, where this author was employed at the time – such was its hefty cost. In a nutshell, the Canada OPCAT Project is therefore only too pleased to bring to your attention this excellent resource, which readers might wish to put right on top of their Christmas reading list.


Discover more essential Christmas reading on the OPCAT here.

Access Nowak et al The UN Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol: A Commentary.

Explore the OPCAT Academics section of this website.

Posted by mp in NPMs, OPCAT, Publication, Tools

Essential Christmas Reading – UWA OPCAT Series

With Christmas just around the corner and the prospect of being incarcerated over the break in close quarters with your loved and perhaps less loved ones (‘you can choose your mates…’) what could be more appealing than some essential reading on the OPCAT to transport you elsewhere?

The University of Western Australia (UWA) has recently published a four-part OPCAT series which has resonance for those of us north of the 49th parallel. While not too heavy to digest, this set of four blogs, give us much to ponder about the OPCAT in the Canadian context.

Kicking off the series, UWA Public Policy Institute Director Shamit Saggar poses the question, ‘can we afford to rely on a complaints-based system?’ In examining the suitability of complaints-focused bodies in the Australian context as it prepares the ground for the implementation of the OPCAT, the writer remarks that “…there is little support for relying on a traditional complaints-approach to the challenge”.

In a paper published earlier this year the Canada OPCAT Project advanced a host of reasons why in the Canadian context a new mechanism should be created for the purposes of OPCAT implementation, primarily due to concerns about the limitations of designating existing ombudsperson-type bodies. Shamit Saggar verbalizes some parallel concerns in the Australian context.

More essential OPCAT reading is provided by Professor Manfred Nowak, who is no stranger in these pages. In a slightly longer contribution, Professor Nowak’s article is aptly titled ‘Australia’s obligations under OPCAT: The challenging task of establishing an effective in a federal state’. Like Canada, Australia is a federal state and as such must institute an NPM in a range of different jurisdictions. In the light of the progress attained in Australia so far, it is the view of this former Special Rapporteur on torture that:

… Australia could become a model for establishing effective NPMs within a federal state structure. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has recently published an excellent and comprehensive baseline study which outlines the variety of places of detention and the extent to which these places are already subject to inspections. This baseline study is intended to serve as basis for states and territories to nominate their respective NPMs.

Manfred Nowak by Phil Strahl (2007)

That being so, Professor Nowak also identifies various risks with the current OPCAT implementation process in Australia, including pertinent questions about the adequate resourcing and overall coordination of the future NPM. Moreover, the current narrow OPCAT approach of the Australian authorities to so-called ‘primary places of detention’ with its exclusion of a whole swathe of potential places of deprivation of liberty Professor Nowak views as especially problematic, and rightly so. A recent article by Laura Grenfell points out why a wider interpretation to OPCAT Article 4 is required in Australia. Nonetheless, as has been argued on several occasions on this website, for Canada there are many lessons which can be drawn from the Australian OPCAT context.

Australian OPCAT enthusiast extraordinaire Steven Caruana offers a refreshingly critical take on the OPCAT implementation process in Australia, despite its noted merits. In an article titled ‘The need for formal partnerships between civil society and the National Preventive Mechanism’ Steven writes the following:

To date, formal civil society participation in the establishment of the NPM and its preventive work has been restricted to consultations with the Australian Human Rights Commission. Substantial engagement with the federal, state and territory governments has been limited. In the case of Western Australia, designation of the Western Australian Ombudsman and Inspector of Custodial Services was made with no public consultation let alone a public announcement.

It is interesting to note that this lack of engagement has not gone unnoticed…

In this excellently succinct article the writer sketches out UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture best practice on third section OPCAT consultation as well as civil society’s potential involvement in domestic NPM schemes. In what exact form the Australian model will emerge, it remains to be seen. Yet despite any perceived shortcomings Down Under, it goes without saying that the Australian consultation process is still light years ahead of the virtually non-existent analogue process in Canada.

In a final article in the series, against the backdrop of the Australian Government’s increasingly sceptical position towards what has been termed as “negative globalism”, Holly Cullen cautions how such a sentiment could pose obstacles to the country realising the full potential of an effective implementation of OPCAT in preventing human rights abuses. In doing so, the writer stresses the following key point which ought also to be heeded by the Canadian authorities:

OPCAT is a human rights treaty. Its implementation cannot be treated as a mere technical exercise of identifying existing public bodies and giving them an additional responsibility. NPMs must be adequately resourced, and an appropriate legislative framework will need to be established. 

Sadly, the above business-as-usual approach to OPCAT implementation has been the downfall of many a national OPCAT system.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the first installment of your essential reading on the OPCAT this Christmas. All four articles merit a closer reading, while readers with more time on their hands over the holidays may wish to peruse the OPCAT Academics section of the website, where you will find some excellent academic articles on torture prevention. Please tune into these pages over the holidays, as further recommendations will soon follow. Until then dear readers, a very Merry Christmas to you from Ottawa, Canada.

Posted by mp in Academic, Australia, Civil society, Consultation, OPCAT

COPCAT Shorts – Why the ICRC works in prisons?

The Canadian Red Cross monitors places of immigration detention in Canada, including federally-run detention centres and provincial prisons. The organization does so for some of the same reasons as depicted in the above video.

Published by the Canadian Border Services Agency on 14 February 2019, a first report highlighted the findings of Canadian Red Cross monitoring of immigration detention in Canada in the period September 2017 to March 2018. A French version of this key report is also available on the same website.   

According to the Canadian Red Cross, it endeavours to visit detention centres to which it has access four times per year with a view to making an assessment based on Canadian and international standards. During visits to detention centres it focuses on the following aspects:

  • the treatment of detainees (by staff and other detainees);
  • conditions of detention;
  • ability for detainees to contact and maintain contact with family members;
  • and legal safeguards.
Special Issue
Detained abstracts 1 by Greenmonster (2010).

More detailed information about the above approach can be found in a previously published article on this website about the first Canadian Red Cross annual report. Its main components are also highlighted in the featured video clip.

The number of migrants deprived of their liberty in Canada is not at all insignificant. According to the Canada Border Services Agency, in the fiscal year 2017-2018 some 8,355 persons were detained for a total of nearly 120,000 detention days in Canada. Of this number, 6,609 persons were held in one of the country’s three Immigration Holding Centres, while the remainder were detained in provincial and other facilities.

Over the past year the Canada OPCAT Project has published various articles on the detention of migrants in Canada, including on the December 2018 recommendation of the UN Committee against Torture that a permanent oversight structure be instituted in the country. If ever ratified by Canada, any future NPM under the OPCAT would inevitably require unfettered access to all facilities where migrants are deprived of their liberty throughout the country.

Yet with seemingly little progress on the OPCAT ratification front, such an NPM might be long in the coming. Thus, for the here and now the Canadian Red Cross’ monitoring of immigration detention remains a key part of the Canadian detention oversight framework, for some of the reasons very well explained in the above ICRC video.


Read Juan Mendez’s article on the Right to a Healthy Prison Environment.

Learn More about the recently published Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty.

Find out more about the Joint UN Statement on Child Immigration Detention.

Read an OPCAT Focus on Immigration Detention.

Posted by mp in Children deprived of liberty, ICRC, Immigration detention, Independent detention monitors, OPCAT, Oversight bodies

COPCAT Shorts – ‘Down With Torture!’ Campaign Images

The Canada OPCAT Project has just updated an older section of the website, ‘Down With Torture’ Campaign Images. The updated section has over 75 images, aiming to bring together in one place a collection of hard-hitting and eye-catching campaign images and posters aimed at preventing torture. While a smaller number of images have a specific OPCAT focus, others are more generic in scope. Collectively they remind us why the absolute prohibition of torture must always stand.

Campaign poster

The Amnesty International Germany poster above from 1978 is an illustrative case in point. The very alarming fact that FIFA went ahead with the tournament in Argentina at a time when it was widely known that thousands of people were being made to disappear, while many thousands more were imprisoned and tortured, beggars belief from today’s perspective.

We have added lots of other images to the collection, from new to old, which we hope to build upon with time. If you have any suggestions for the ‘Down With Torture!’ collection, please do send us your ideas. All suggestions are gratefully received. For now please browse at your leisure…

Posted by mp in absolute prohibition, Absolute prohibition of torture, OPCAT

COPCAT Shorts – New Dignity Fact Sheet

Dignity – Danish Institute Against Torture has unleashed on the torture-prevention world a brand new Fact Sheet. Published as No. 10 in Dignity’s superbly useful series of Legal Fact Sheets, its focus on Prisoner Contact Rights offers a succinct overview of this topic, citing various relevant international standards such as, among others, the UN Nelson Mandela Rules.

New Dignity Fact Sheet on Prisoner Contact Rights (November 2019).

Dignity’s entire collection of Legal Fact Sheets merit closer examination by detention monitors and human rights actors alike. To date, this distinguished Copenhagen-based international NGO has covered an array of important topics, including the following:

Legal No. 1 – Defining Torture

Legal No. 2 – Redressing Torture

Legal No. 3 – Preventing Torture

Legal No. 4 – Investigating Torture

Legal No. 5 – Criminalizing Torture

Legal No. 6 – Prosecuting Torture

Legal No. 7 – Safeguards in Police Custody

Legal No. 8 – Torture & Migration

Legal No. 9 – Pre-Trial Detention

Additionally, Dignity has also produced a non-numbered Fact Sheet on Corruption & Torture, a topic of concern highlighted on this website. If that were not enough for the over-worked, time-poor and possibly under-paid, but highly thought-of reader, the organization has published a whole range of other useful resources relating to the prevention of torture, not least on the broader issues of health and rehabilitation.

For Canadian readers perhaps less familiar with Dignity, now some 37 years into their existence, why not explore the organization’s website. After all, what is there not to like about this exceedingly fine international human rights organization?!


Read more about Dignity – Danish Institute Against Torture, including its long history.

Explore Dignity’s 10 different Legal Fact Sheets and other publications.

Learn more about the UN Nelson Mandela Rules and UNODC’s related posters.

Check out this website’s ‘Other Resources’ for more tools and reports about deprivation of liberty.

Posted by mp