OPCAT

Human Rights In Context Canadian OPCAT Focus

The Canada OPCAT Project is delighted to make its first podcast appearance ever this week in the the latest edition of Human Rights in Context, an exciting new human rights podcast series. You can listen to Torture Prevention and the OPCAT in Canada podcast here.

Launched in July 2020 by Matt Sands, Human Rights in Context is a new podcast series looking at international human rights in countries around the world. Although a relatively new podcast, it has been many months in planning.

The podcast series explores the relevance of international human rights in everyday life. It explores how human rights treaties and standards, or activity at the UN, actually has an impact on how people enjoy basic freedoms. The series examines some of the most important human rights issues with experts from around the world who will provide inspiration and confidence for people who are (or hope to be) working in this area. You can watch a trailer to the series here.

Past episodes of the podcast have looked at a diversity of modern-day human rights issues through the ideas of long-time activists. As readers can see below, whether it has been supporting Human Rights Defenders, a focus on COVID-19 and the precarious situation of older people, modern slavery in Haiti, the prevention of wide-scale torture in Brazil or the egregious treatment of asylum-seekers and refugees in Italy, Human Rights in Context has offered a very welcome and much-needed platform for an array of human rights voices.

The Canada OPCAT Project is very grateful to Matt Sands for his kind invitation to be part of the podcast series and to have the opportunity to illuminate a pressing, real-life human rights issue in the context of Canada.


Listen to Torture Prevention and the OPCAT in Canada podcast here.

Visit the HRIC website.

Listen to past episodes.

Find out more about its host and founder, Matt Sands.

Follow Human Rights in Context on Twitter.

Posted by mp in Canada, OPCAT, 0 comments

‘Canada drags its feet on international convention against torture’

In a rare Canadian in-depth news article on the OPCAT, journalist Lital Khaikin throws a critical spotlight on Canada’s continued failure to ratify the instrument. Launched in Canadian Dimension on 18 September 2020 as the first in a three-part OPCAT article series, Lital Khaikin questions why Canada has singularly failed to move ahead with the OPCAT torture-prevention instrument, despite repeated global pledges and statements to do so.

This failure is all the more worrying at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has hit down hard on multiple closed institutional settings in the country, especially long-term care homes for the elderly.

The overall investigative thrust of three-part series is described by the author in the following terms:

This is the first article in a three-part series on Canada’s historical reluctance to ratify the United Nations’ Optional Protocol with the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). Despite being one of the early champions of this international law that exists to prevent torture in civilian and military detention centres, Canada has still not officially adopted the agreement. The first article examines the lack of transparency and bureaucratic reticence toward OPCAT. The second part examines the circumstances in Canadian detention centres—and other care and medical environments—that urgently call for this greater accountability. The third part examines precedents in Canadian military use of torture alongside Canada’s spotty human rights track record.

The Canadian Dimension series’ broader focus on detention and the need for greater transparency arrives at a crucial time, regrettably more so as the OPCAT project seems to have hit the buffers in Canada. Otherwise put, the repeated international calls for Canada to move ahead with the ratification of the instrument have seemingly fallen on deaf ears.

Solitary -DieselDemon (2010).

In this first article for Canadian Dimension Lital Khaikin interviews leading Canadian human rights advocates, including the current Correctional Investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger, who has long urged Canada to sign and ratify the instrument. Ezat Mossallanejad, Settlement Counsellor and Policy Analyst at the Toronto-based Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture, also weighs into this long overdue discussion, offering several unique and invaluable historical insights.

The Canada OPCAT Project even raises its ugly head at the end of the article with a deliberately pointed comment about the lack of overall transparency, openness and inclusiveness of the national discussion process on OPCAT ratification.

Paradoxically, while Canada’s fourth estate frequently advances scathing commentaries on the on-going elderly care home scandal, under-age migrants held in detention, the shoddy material condition of parts of Canada’s prison estate, the widespread overuse of solitary confinement in detention, and the shocking ‘Indigenization’ of the overall prison population, to name just a few contemporary media concerns, very rarely do Canadian journalists ever join the dots up and make the linkage with the country’s overall weak national patchwork of independent oversight of detention. Journalist Lital Khaikin attempts to do just that in this new series of articles.

In a nutshell, for regulars, and even irregulars to the Canada OPCAT Project website, this article is a must read.


Read ‘Canada drags its feet on international convention against torture’ by Lital Khaikin, published in Canadian Dimension on 18 September 2020.

Read Lital Khaikin’s numerous previous Canadian Dimension articles.

Find out more about Canadian Dimension and consider making a donation to the news forum.

Posted by mp in Canada, COVID-19, OPCAT, 0 comments

OPCAT Hits The Canadian Buffers?

With not even an admission of regret, let alone an apology, did Global Affairs Canada’s response to the Canada OPCAT Project’s Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Request drop onto the doormat – some six months late. What is more, the information contained therein strongly suggests that Canada’s repeatedly stated intention to move ahead with the OPCAT may have finally hit the buffers.

Alternatively, and arguably worse still, might the Canadian authorities be quietly moving forward without consulting with Canadian civil society? To think, as recently as 2016, Canada’s then Foreign Minister stated that the OPCAT would no longer be optional for Canada.

Camera Surveillance Prison – Jobs For Felons Hub (2016).

To quickly recap, an ATIP Request was submitted to Global Affairs Canada (the lead federal agency on OPCAT ratification) on 23 December 2019 to determine to what extent Canada had acted on a key international recommendation to ensure greater consultation with civil society and Indigenous organizations on the ratification of the OPCAT.

More precisely, in the December 2019 ATIP Request to Global Affairs Canada, the Canada OPCAT Project asked for the following information.

“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.

Please see paragraph 21(d) of the Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Canada (UN Doc. CAT/C/CAN/CO/7), dated 21 December 2018.

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.

In late January 2020 Global Affairs Canada responded, stating that it required an additional 45-days to process the request, which, according to the relevant legislation, was due no later than 7 March 2020. In a word, the agency had 75 days to process the request and a deadline which fell before the COVID-19 shutdown.

Tall Prison Fence – Simon Brass (2007).

In a letter dated 24 August 2020 the Canada OPCAT Project finally received a response to its original ATIP Request, nearly six months overdue. Was the long wait worth it? Sadly not so.

In the period 1 December 2018 to 21 December 2019 the extent to which Canada acted on the UN Committee’s recommendation to ensure the participation of civil society, Indigenous groups and other stakeholders in the entire OPCAT accession process comprised just two meetings with civil society.

And you may wonder why we wonder whether the OPCAT has finally hit the OPCAT buffers in Canada? In view of the apparent lack of progress, it is highly possible that the OPCAT train never left the platform, let alone hit those proverbial buffers.

Two sets of email communications are enclosed in the nine-page ATIP response, six pages of which relate to Canada OPCAT Project exchanges with Global Affairs Canada. The remaining three pages relate to an exchange with Amnesty International Canada. The totality of the disclosed civil society OPCAT consultation process from 1 December 2018 to 21 December 2019 comprised the following:

  • A meeting between representatives of Global Affairs Canada and the Canada OPCAT Project on 13 December 2018;
  • Acknowledgement of receipt of a Canada OPCAT Project discussion paper on possible OPCAT implementation on 12 February 2019;
  • A meeting between representatives of Global Affairs Canada/Justice Canada and Amnesty International Canada on 10 July 2019.

That, dear readers, was the sum total of Canada’s OPCAT consultation process with civil society during the period in question.

Yet arguably worse still, what if discussions on the implementation of the OPCAT are moving ahead within government, but without the participation of Canadian civil society and Indigenous organizations? Buffers or no OPCAT buffers, it may be high time for another ATIP Request to determine if this is the case.

All of which time and effort could be entirely avoided, of course, if Global Affairs Canada, or another agency, willingly placed information into the public domain concerning Canada’s repeatedly declared intention to consider ratifying the OPCAT. Other countries routinely do so, why not here?


Read more about the Canada OPCAT Project’s ATIP Request from December 2019 and the initial response from Global Affairs Canada from January 2020.

Read A Silence Not Golden – the ATIP Request Update from 16 March 2020.

Posted by mp in Canada, OPCAT

Filling In The Canadian OPCAT Blanks

“It will never work”, they said. “There are just too many of them. Never in a million years.

More than just a few detractors muttered: “Eighteen different detention monitoring bodies spread throughout four country jurisdictions. What on earth were they thinking of?!”

Surely, someone in the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice was having a proverbial ‘laugh’, it was suggested, when it issued its written ministerial statement to Parliament in early 2009, announcing the formal launch and composition of the then UK’s 18-body NPM? Come on – really?!

As someone who attended the official launch event of the UK NPM at the Ministry of Justice in the heart of Westminster, London in 2009, a certain question mark certainly hovered over the feasibility of the complicated structure of the multi-body mechanism.

Recklessness then further abounded. Several years later, in 2013, the UK National Preventive Mechanism was expanded to a colossal 21 individual bodies. The sheer madness of it?

Or perhaps not.

More than 10-years into its existence, the UK’s multi hydra-structured NPM seems to be functioning reasonably well, if not better, despite its many heads. Moreover, several of its constituent bodies are very often referenced as mechanisms of best detention monitoring/OPCAT practice.

Interested readers can find detailed information about each of the 21 statutory bodies that make up the UK NPM on its website

Moreover, as a whole the entity remains more than self-aware that operational improvements are still there to be made. These include the pressing need to ensure the formal anchoring of the mechanism in law and to secure adequate financing of its Secretariat.

With good reason, the UK NPM has every right to be more than quietly pleased with its first decade of operation, despite some initial naysaying. The report of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, following its September 2019 visit to the UK, once published, will no doubt also be closely scrutinized by the mechanism as a potential benchmark for improvement.


From a Canadian perspective, the following, excellent UK NPM infographics are especially interesting. The first depicts which elements of the overall UK NPM have responsibility for monitoring the different types of places of detention in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. While the Canadian reader might not necessarily be familiar with the listed acronyms, they will still be able to determine that a diversity of monitoring entities are in operation in relation to the different detention settings in the four countries.

If one were to devise a similar infographic for Canada, how would it look? How would we fill in the blanks under the different detention settings? Keeping in mind that a complaints-handling ombuds-type body is not the same thing as a proactive, preventive monitoring mechanism and that any entities would need to fully comply with the minimum standards envisaged for an NPM in the OPCAT text, which existing oversight bodies would populate the said Canadian infographic?

If you can, fill in those blanks for yourself. This writer believes that at present there would be more than just a few blanks or gaps in any such analogue Canadian infographic.

The second infographic helpfully breaks down the NPM’s overall composition by country jurisdiction. Mercifully, those troublesome acronyms have been lanced. If we were to do the same for Canada’s 14 jurisdictions, using the OPCAT text criteria for NPMs, how would it appear? Once again, please fill in those blanks.

Would there be jurisdictions without any corresponding OPCAT compliant mechanism at all? Most probably.

In a paper published on this website in 2019, originally submitted as an LL.M dissertation, we tried to do just that. The conclusion reached in the paper was that, if the myriad of existing federal, provincial and territorial ombudsperson offices and human rights commissions were to be designated as the country’s future NPM, many would need to be significantly re-purposed in terms of their mandates, structures, composition and operation. Even then, there would still exist certain types of places of detention in Canada without any NPM coverage, unless new bodies were created.

You may not agree with this conclusion, but a quick scan of the paper would help you determine whether the aforementioned infographic blanks can be easily filled in or not, given the current institutional human rights landscape of Canada.


Even though at present the commitment of the current Canadian administration to ratify the OPCAT appears to have been quietly and conveniently forgotten, if in 10 years’ time we can boast our own eye-catching NPM infographics, then there will be cause for human rights celebration.

Until genuine political interest is reignited in the OPCAT project, Canadian human rights actors will have to look to NPMs in other countries, like the United Kingdom, for further OPCAT inspiration. And to think that commentators once questioned the brazen unorthodoxy of the UK approach to OPCAT implementation?

Originality, it would seem, is not to be underestimated at all.


Find out more about the UK NPM.

Read Ten Years of the UK National Preventive Mechanism: Working together to prevent torture and ill-treatment in detention (2020).

Read the Canada OPCAT Project paper, Instituting an NPM in Canada: Lessons from Global OPCAT Implementation (2019).

Posted by mp in Canada, NPMs, OPCAT, United Kingdom

Reeling In The Years – The Revised European Prison Rules

You distinctly know you are getting on in years when you look around you and notice that the European Prison Rules have been revised – once again.

Working for a Geneva-based NGO at the time, this writer was involved in the drafting of a short submission during the last revision process of the European Prison Rules circa 2005. A quick blink of an eye later and we find ourselves a whole decade-and-half further down the train tracks of life.

All of which is a very convoluted way of saying that this timely and thorough update of the European Prison Rules is unquestionably a very welcome development.

After all, it took the UN over 60 years to revise (from 2010 – 2015) what are now known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, towards the end of which the 1955 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were clearly showing their age. Thus, the many positives of our regional human rights systems resonate again, more so in Europe perhaps.

Guard Tower – Thomas (2017).

The updated European Prison Rules were announced to the world on 1 July 2020 in a press release titled Revised European Prison Rules: new guidance to prison services on humane treatment of inmates, which stated:

“The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has adopted a Recommendation which updates the 2006 European Prison Rules. The rules, which contain the key legal standards and principles related to prison management, staff and treatment of detainees and are a global reference in this field, guide the 47 Council of Europe member states in their legislation, policies and practices.

The revision concerns the rules on the record keeping of information about inmates and the management of their files, the treatment of women prisoners, foreign nationals, as well as the use of special high security or safety measures such as the separation of prisoners from other inmates, solitary confinement, instruments of restraint, the need to ensure adequate levels in prison staff, inspection and independent monitoring.”

As noted above, for instance, the updated version of the Rules now regulate in considerably greater detail the use of solitary confinement. Canada, please take note.

By dint of this revision, on the issue of solitary confinement the 2006 European Prison Rules have been elaborated from one lonely line, as follows:

60.5 Solitary confinement shall be imposed as a punishment only in exceptional cases and for a specified period of time, which shall be as short as possible.

Solitary – DieselDemon (2010).

… to a veritable parable in the 2020 version of the Rules, as follows:

60.6. a Solitary confinement, that is the confinement of a prisoner for more than 22 hours a day without meaningful human contact, shall never be imposed on children, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers or parents with infants in prison.

60.6. b The decision on solitary confinement shall take into account the current state of health of the prisoner concerned. Solitary confinement shall not be imposed on prisoners with mental or physical disabilities when their condition would be exacerbated by it. Where solitary confinement has been imposed, its execution shall be terminated or suspended if the prisoner’s mental or physical condition has deteriorated. 

60.6. c Solitary confinement shall not be imposed as a disciplinary punishment, other than in exceptional cases and then for a specified period, which shall be as short as possible and shall never amount to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

60.6. d The maximum period for which solitary confinement may be imposed shall be set in national law. 

60.6. e Where a punishment of solitary confinement is imposed for a new disciplinary offence on a prisoner who has already spent the maximum period in solitary confinement, such a punishment shall not be implemented without first allowing the prisoner to recover from the adverse effects of the previous period of solitary confinement.

60.6. f Prisoners who are in solitary confinement shall be visited daily, including by the director of the prison or by a member of staff acting on behalf of the director of the prison.

Similarly, on the question of independent oversight of places of detention the 2006 European Prison Rules have been transformed from the following two, somewhat pedestrian lines:

93.1 The conditions of detention and the treatment of prisoners shall be monitored by an independent body or bodies whose findings shall be made public.

93.2 Such independent monitoring body or bodies shall be encouraged to cooperate with those international agencies that are legally entitled to visit prisons.

Night Lighthouse – Mark Vegas (2007).

… to the following distinctly more descriptive and regulated version in the 2020 revised Rules:

93.1 To ensure that the conditions of detention and the treatment of prisoners meet the requirements of national and international law and the provisions of these rules, and that the rights and dignity of prisoners are upheld at all times, prisons shall be monitored by a designated independent body or bodies, whose findings shall be made public.

93.2 Such independent monitoring bodies shall be guaranteed:

a. access to all prisons and parts of prisons, and to prison records, including those relating to requests and complaints, and information on conditions of detention and prisoner treatment, that they require to carry out their monitoring activities;

b. the choice of which prisons to visit, including by making unannounced visits at their own initiative, and which prisoners to interview; and

c. the freedom to conduct private and fully confidential interviews with prisoners and prison staff.

93.3 No prisoner, member of the prison staff or any other person, shall be subject to any sanction for providing information to an independent monitoring body.

93.4 Independent monitoring bodies shall be encouraged to co-operate with those international agencies that are legally entitled to visit prisons.

93.5 Independent monitoring bodies shall have the authority to make recommendations to the prison administration and other competent bodies.

93.6 The national authorities or prison administration shall inform these bodies, within a reasonable time, on the action being taken in respect of such recommendations.

93.7 Monitoring reports and the responses thereto shall be made public.

Strasbourg’s finest legal draftsmen and draftswomen have clearly been doing their homework: OPCAT Articles 19 to 23 anyone?

Which is a timely reminder that Global Affairs Canada have yet to respond to the Canada OPCAT Project’s Access to Information & Privacy Request from December 2019 on OPCAT consultation with civil society, despite the passing of more than six months.

If some Canadian readers may be scratching their collective heads wondering what on earth a Council of Europe soft-law instrument has to do with Canada then the Canada OPCAT Project brings this breaking development to you as yet another international best practice example of how deprivation of liberty might be better managed – whether it be solitary confinement, independent monitoring or any number of other important issues – in Canada, or anywhere for that matter.

International human rights standards are set in order to bring us all up, not down, even though they do not necessarily make you feel any younger.


Read the 2020 updated European Prison Rules in English and French.

Read the press release Revised European Prison Rules: new guidance to prison services on humane treatment of inmates or Règles pénitentiaires européennes révisées : nouvelles orientations destinées aux services pénitentiaires sur la prise en charge humaine des détenus.

Find out more about the Nelson Mandela Rules and see UNODC’s information placards.

Posted by mp in Independent detention monitors, OPCAT, Oversight bodies, Prisons, Solitary confinement

Ontario Prisons: Something To Complain About?

Plenty it would seem, if you believe the province’s principal complaints-handling body, Ontario Ombudsman.

According to the Ontario Ombudsman’s 2019-2020 Annual Report, issued on 30 June 2020, a very sizeable 6000 complaints were lodged by prisoners about the province’s correctional facilities. This figure represented an increase on the year previous, when 5711 complaints were filed about Ontario corrections.

Of this most recent figure, some 82 complaints were lodged by groups of prisoners in the same unit or facility, usually as a means to vent a common grievance such as sub-standard living conditions.

As the illustration below succinctly depicts, significantly more complaints were made in relation to correctional facilities in the province than any other criminal justice-related matter.

A breakdown of the top five reasons for lodging a grievance is illustrated below. Prisoner complaints about inadequate healthcare provision far exceeded all other grounds for grumble, although there was a very significant groundswell of displeasure in relation to lock-downs (often due to staff shortages), representing an increase of nearly 200 complaints as compared with 2018-2019. The report discusses these and other prisoner-held concerns in greater depth in its Law and Order section.

On page 79 of the report the top 10 institutions as sources for complaints are additionally listed. Three prisons generated more than a whopping 700 plus grievances each.

The institution’s team also continued to visit prison facilities throughout the year. In doing so, staff encountered some grim realities:

At some facilities, including the Thunder Bay and Kenora jails, our team observed disturbing, overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. Some facilities had three or even four inmates bunked in cells designed for two. We also saw inmates housed in areas not designated for living purposes, where they had no direct access to toilets and were subjected to frequent, prolonged lockdowns, limiting their access to programs, fresh air, and even running water. Correctional staff told the Ombudsman and our team that these conditions harm the morale of inmates and staff alike.

Equally worryingly, the Ontario Ombudsman received 118 complaints alleging physical abuse by prison staff, of which two such examples are highlighted in the report:

“An inmate told us he was punched in the head and face several times by correctional officers, leaving him in hospital with a broken nose and concussion. We confirmed with the facility that after a local investigation, the matter was referred to the CSOI and the correctional staff involved were suspended.”

“We reviewed a facility’s handling of a case where an inmate was hospitalized after being pepper-sprayed by a correctional officer. The local investigation report confirmed that excessive force had been used, but we identified several issues with the investigation process, including lengthy delays and revisions made to the original report, resulting in conflicting information. We raised these issues with senior officials at the facility, as well as the Ministry, which is updating its policy for local investigation reports.”

During the year under review, the office handled a massive 26,423 complaints and inquiries about broader public sector services. As discussed in the report under 12 different topic headings, the Ontario Ombudsman handles complaints as diverse as law and order, social services, French language services, children and youth, education, health, transport and employment – to cite just a few.

In the accompanying press release to the Annual Report, Ontario Ombudsman Paul Dubé reflected on the stunning and ongoing challenges faced by the province’s public sector arising from the current coronavirus pandemic, stating:

“The profound shock to our public infrastructure and systems will provide countless lessons, as well as opportunities to strengthen them in future … We stand ready, as always, to help.”

Very positively, Ontario Ombudsman Paul Dubé proactively responded to the current pandemic by releasing on 26 March 2020 a statement regarding the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the province’s correctional facilities. The statement outlined the institution’s methodological approach to ensuring its human rights monitoring function during the public health emergency.

Moreover, in response to the numerous deaths in supposed care facilities for seniors, on 1 June 2020 the institution launched an investigation into the oversight of long-term care homes by the province’s Ministry of Long-Term Care and Ministry of Health during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The argument has previously been advanced in these pages that the ratification of the OPCAT could be one active measure the Canadian government might take to address the slipshod oversight – internal or otherwise – of such facilities for Canada’s elderly.

While not an NPM-type preventive entity, the Ontario Ombudsman’s Annual Report and its focus on prison-related matters reveal a hard-working complaints-handling institution sensitive to the human rights of the province’s incarcerated population.

Readers may also be interested to read the thematic and annual reports of other provincial ombuds-type bodies including institutions in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec.

In a nutshell, there is much reading to be getting on with this fine Canada Day.


Read the Ontario Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2019-2020 in English and French.

Read the accompanying press release in English and French.

See the statement by the Ontario Ombudsman on COVID-19 and Ontario’s Correctional Facilities in English and French.

Learn more about the Ontario Ombudsman’s investigation into the oversight of long-term care homes during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in English and French.

Posted by mp in OPCAT, Prisons, Senior care homes

Public Health Emergencies & Arbitrary Detention

Shudder to think that Canada might ever be plagued by anything worse than the current Covid-19 public health emergency. Yet the reality is that more than just a few unlucky countries are often beset by outbreaks of disease, sometimes both frequently and severely.

Whether the outbreaks are global, regional or national in scope, Cholera, Influenza, Plague, Smallpox, Ebola, Rift Valley Fever, Meningitis, Yellow Fever, Zika, SARS, Monkeypox and numerous other frighteningly sounding maladies typically afflict the inhabitants of such far less fortunate countries.

As someone who lived in West Africa during the 2014-2015 Ebola crisis, Covid-19 is one of just a number of dreadful blights out there, believe you me.

Yet even when such epidemics do visit upon a society, it is clear that those entities wielding power must not deprive persons of their liberty in an arbitrary manner, whether they be persons perceived to be suffering from a given health condition or otherwise.

Recently the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) issued an excellent new thematic position paper (known as a ‘Deliberation’) on ‘the prevention of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the context of public health emergencies‘. From the title of the document, it is axiomatic that the principles contained therein would apply to an array of public health emergencies, and not just the present Covid-19 crisis.

In the accompanying press release, the UN Working Group recalled that:

…the prohibition of arbitrary detention is absolute even during times of public emergencies and urged governments worldwide to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the context of the measures currently adopted for controlling the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

The statement continued:

In its newly adopted Deliberation No. 11, the expert group establishes a set of guidelines to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty during public health emergencies, stressing that any control measures “must be publicly declared, be strictly proportionate to the threat, be the least intrusive means to protect public health and imposed only while the emergency lasts”.

The Storm Breaks – Tim Sackton (2012)

What has any of the above to do with Canada, you might reasonably ask? In a word, the risk of arbitrary detention exists anywhere, more so during times of national crisis when emergency powers are resorted to or are legislated in quick measure.

What is more, a closer glance at the UN Working Group position paper reveals a wealth of advice and guidance of direct relevance to the Canadian context. In particular, paragraphs 12 to 16 literally jump off the page. For instance:

The Working Group … calls upon all States to pay particular attention to the requirements of necessity and proportionality of deprivation of liberty in the context of public health emergencies, such as the newly emerging emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. (12)

In particular, States should urgently review existing cases of deprivation of liberty in all detention settings to determine whether the detention is still justified as necessary and proportionate in the prevailing context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, States should consider all alternative measures to custody. (13)

In view of the hotly-debated point of discussion whether the federal, provincial and territorial authorities have taken sufficiently swift steps to address existing levels of incarceration during the current public health emergency, the above excerpts are highly relevant. One need only peruse the multiple daily news articles on this topic, as featured on this website, to see why.

Arbitrary Limitations – Marcin Wichary (2008).

Similarly, paragraph 15 of the Working Group’s Deliberation echoes current calls to ensure that certain categories of detainees are released from detention in Canada, as follows:

The Working Group is aware that COVID-19 mostly affects persons older than 60 years of age, pregnant women and women who are breastfeeding, persons with underlying health conditions, and persons with disabilities. It therefore recommends that States treat all such individuals as vulnerable. States should also refrain from holding such individuals in places of deprivation of liberty where the risk to their physical and mental integrity and life is heightened.

And not forgetting Deliberation paragraph 16, which states the following:

Lastly, noting that overcrowding and poor hygiene pose a particular risk of spreading COVID-19, States should seek to reduce prison populations and other detention populations wherever possible by implementing schemes of early, provisional or temporary release for those detainees for whom it is safe to do so … Noting the obligation arising from the Convention on the Rights of the Child of not detaining children, particular consideration should be given to releasing children and women with children, and also those serving sentences for non-violent crimes.

Readers can make their own minds up whether the guidance in the above paragraphs has been followed across-the-board in Canada in the light of current day conditions. Clearly, certain provinces have acted more quickly than others, while federal prison decarceration has to date been limited.

Finally, as regards Canada’s severe, on-going case of OPCAT stupor, Deliberation No. 11 offers a much-needed tonic:

The Working Group encourages States to ratify the Optional Protocol to the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and States that are a party thereto to adhere to the advice of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to States parties and national preventive mechanisms relating to the coronavirus pandemic.
(30)

The Working Group has also underscored a key point previously advanced by other influential actors:

The Working Group acknowledges the particular challenges that the prevailing public health emergency poses to such independent oversight as those involved in human rights monitoring seek to uphold the principle of “do no harm”. However, the prevailing public health emergency cannot be used as a blanket justification to prevent all such independent oversight. The Working Group calls upon all States to allow visits of independent oversight mechanisms to all places of deprivation of liberty during the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies. Due consideration should be given to such practical measures as staggering the visits of oversight bodies, allowing for extra telephone and internet contact and establishing hotlines and the use of personal protection equipment. (29)

In this respect the Working Group echoes other United Nations and Council of Europe advice, a conundrum recently discussed in-depth on this website.

In addition to the overall goldmine of human rights guidance and instruction contained in the paper, Deliberation No. 11 also lays down how any returning refusenik Snowbirds, or anyone else reluctant to self-quarantine for that matter, should be dealt with by the authorities. But readers will have to turn to paragraphs 8 and 19 of this first-class contribution to find out more.


Read UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Deliberation No. 11 on prevention of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the context of public health emergencies. Read the accompanying press release.

Find out more about the work of the WGAD.

Explore the WGAD’s other Deliberations.

Will the WGAD ever undertake a fact-finding visit to Canada? Read more.

Posted by mp in Arbitrary detention, COVID-19, OPCAT, Oversight bodies, Places of detention

The Canadian Seniors Care Home Scandal – A Catalyst for Change?

Four years’ ago this week, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stéphane Dion, declared to the world that the Optional Protocol would no longer be optional for Canada in the future, a full decade after Canada had originally hinted it would ratify the instrument in 2006.

Put it down to forgetfulness, institutional amnesia or even just debilitating procrastination, Canada has yet to make good on its stated commitment to finally put pen to paper at UN headquarters in New York and ratifying the instrument.

In so not doing, Canada may well have succeeded in setting a new world record for the longest OPCAT ratification process in the instrument’s history – at least for an advanced democracy – trailed in close second by the Republic of Ireland (which has, if nothing else, signed the instrument).

No other contenders for the record come to mind. On the other hand, quite a few other countries who lag significantly behind Canada in overall human rights terms have done so – long ago even. Argentina, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Serbia and Tunisia spring immediately to mind.

Guinness World Records 2020 – Debbie Harris (2019).

Over the years there has been no lack of international encouragement for Canada to make good on its commitment to ratify the OPCAT, not least by the UN Human Rights Council and UN Committee against Torture in 2018.

After undertaking fact-finding missions to these Canadian shores, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities both urged Ottawa to ratify the instrument in their 2019 reports.

So what goes on in Ottawa? Frankly, probably very little it would seem. The Canada OPCAT Project’s repeated attempts to elicit even a single atom of information about the not-on-going OPCAT ratification and consultation process through Access to Information & Privacy (ATIP) requests have proven largely ineffective.

A December 2019 ATIP request seeking clarity about whether Global Affairs Canada (supposedly the lead OPCAT ratification agency in Canada) had liaised with civil society groups on the ratification of the instrument since Canada’s examination by the UN Committee against Torture in Geneva in November 2018 has, to date, gone entirely unheeded.

The current Covid-19 emergency will undoubtedly squelch any remaining hope, no matter how dim, of ever receiving a reply to this eminently reasonable request.


Yet just look 360 degrees about you. If there were ever a time when effective, robust oversight of Canada’s closed institutions were needed, then that moment is right now.

The current Covid-19-related crisis in Canada’s long-term care homes for seniors is a sadly illustrative case in point. So far, fingers tightly crossed, the coronavirus health crisis has not severely afflicted the Canadian prison system in terms of fatalities. In stark contrast, however, private and state-run care homes for seniors have been utterly ravaged by the virus.

Unfathomably, seniors have been dying in scores in the very facilities designed to care for them. The sheer daily number of news entries listed in the COVID-19 Deprivation of Liberty Corner, reporting the appalling deaths and infection rates of society’s seniors, is a reflection of the current, depressingly critical situation.

Watch For Senior Citizens – Ethan Prater (2008).

Yet where are the rugged, independent mechanisms pointing the finger at and holding these facilities to account?

Is it entirely accidental that these most lightly regulated of institutions have fared so poorly in dealing with the existing pandemic? If the current death rates had plagued Canada’s prison estate, there would have been a unshakable national scandal by now, and rightly so.

Yet where is the seething anger regarding how Canada’s seniors are being treated?

Robust, independent oversight is not a panacea to society’s closed institutional ills, even more so at moments of public emergency like the present. Yet it is a pretty decent start.

It can ensure that the human rights and dignity of persons found therein, whether they be senior citizens, migrants or prisoners, are observed during both the best and worst of times.

If there is nothing like a raging public row to clear the air, then that moment is arguably the present. Increasingly thunderous calls for change in how senior care is operated in Canada should result in a complete overhaul of the private and public long-term care system for the elderly, resulting in sweeping change which incorporates robust, independent oversight thereof at all jurisdictional levels.

The OPCAT human rights instrument could be a key component of this much-needed change-process.

Sidewalk Reassurance – Travis Wise (2020).

From an OPCAT perspective, the question of whether senior care homes fall within the scope of OPCAT Article 4’s definition of deprivation of liberty has long been settled. Furthermore, the highly respected European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has been visiting care homes of different types for many years as part of its core detention monitoring mandate.

In August 2019 leading Australian academic Laura Grenfell made some excellent arguments why seniors’ homes fall squarely within the scope of OPCAT Article 4 in a journal article titled Aged care, detention and OPCAT, featured in the Australian Journal of Human Rights. The latter journal has devoted invaluable space in recent months to the important issue of OPCAT implementation in Australia, several articles from which have been highlighted in the OPCAT Academics section of this website.

In the said article Professor Grenfell underpinned the crucial importance of independent oversight of senior care facilities, as follows:

Current federal and state schemes for the monitoring and oversight of closed aged care facilities are inadequate. This is largely due to the hodgepodge of standards and existing inspection bodies’ lack of expertise. It is critical for civil society to encourage government to adhere to and resource best-practice OPCAT monitoring for aged care facilities where people are detained in closed units. Monitoring by NPM teams using rigorous and nationally consistent human-rights-based standards will allow the risks facing a vulnerable group of people – who, in SA ICAC’s words, ‘lack any voice themselves’ and are ‘entirely dependent upon others for their care and their safety’ (South Australian Independent Commissioner Against Corruption 2018, 190) – to be assessed. People who are deprived of their liberty in closed aged care units are in a vulnerable position and are at a disproportionately high risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Closed units in aged care facilities should not be allowed to fall under the OPCAT radar.

What has come to pass in Canada’s long-term care facilities for seniors can never be allowed to happen again. The need for robust regulation and effective, hard-wearing arms-length oversight of such institutions should be the catalyst for a long overdue, re-energized national discussion on the ratification and implementation of the OPCAT in Canada.

As opposed to further OPCAT procrastination, Canada should strive to be a world record-breaker in how it treats its senior members of society as a barometer of its commitment to everyone’s human rights – the young and the old. After all, we are all headed in the same direction. The effective implementation of the OPCAT could make a decisive contribution to this overarching process.

Yet with the ratification of the OPCAT being entirely a figment of someone else’s imagination in Canadian government circles these days – or seemingly so – something fundamentally needs to change in Ottawa’s corridors of power.

Four further years of OPCAT procrastination, after the country’s then Minister of Foreign Affairs very publicly committed to OPCAT ratification, is nothing to be proud of. In view of the current seniors care homes scandal, sitting on one’s hands no longer remains an acceptable national policy option.


Read Laura Grenfell’s article, Aged care, detention and OPCAT in the Australian Journal of Human Rights.

Explore other academic articles in OPCAT Academics.

Learn more about the OPCAT ratification process in Canada.

Find other materials on Covid-19 and detention.

Posted by mp in Australia, Civil society, Consultation, OPCAT, Oversight bodies, Senior care homes

COVID-19: Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now?

This troublesome question of whether to stay or to go is one not just to afflict a famous English punk rock band some four decades ago. Rather, it is one today to rack the human rights hearts and minds of detention oversight mechanisms from all over – in this new, but far less brave COVID-19 world of ours.

Boiled down, the burdensome decision to be reached is whether inspection bodies, OPCAT mechanisms or not, should continue to exercise their core detention visiting function in the wake of the current, seemingly quickly deteriorating global health pandemic? At first blush, the general answer to this quandary, while certainly far from clear, appears to be a somewhat reluctant not – at least not physically.

Wash Your Hands (COVID-19 Self-Protection Advice – William Murphy (2020).

Less than a week ago, the Canadian Correctional Investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger, marked out the monitoring position of his institution in the following statement issued in English and French:

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has implemented exceptional COVID-19 measures that will affect routines and conditions of confinement in Canada’s federal penitentiaries, including suspension of all visits until further notice.  At this time, though regular and scheduled institutional visits from OCI staff members have also been temporarily suspended and most staff are working remotely from home, as an external independent oversight body the Office of the Correctional Investigator will maintain an essential level of services and operations, including regular situational monitoring… As the situation evolves, the Office will consider making emergency institutional visits on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration directions from health authorities.”

This position appears to strike a crucial balance between doing no harm, keeping a close eye on the current, fast-moving situation, and reserving the ultimate right to knock hard on any institutional door, if needs must. The emerging global practice suggests that the Canadian Correctional Investigator may not be alone in adopting such a stance.

Elsewhere in Canada the situation is less clear. While on one hand, the Ombudsman Ontario is working remotely and liaising with the detaining authorities from afar, the approach of the country’s other provincial and territorial ombuds-type bodies is ambiguous.

Flower Stream – Rennett Stowe (2020).

For the most part, the country’s patchwork system of ombudsperson institutions have issued statements, informing the public that they have closed their doors with a view to limiting face-to-face contact with the masses and/or are working remotely. Unlike, the Office of the Correctional Investigator, however, no detailed information is generally provided about the modalities of any interaction with the detaining authorities over which they have an oversight function.

Ideally, one would hope that a similar approach to the Correctional Investigator has been adopted, but in the absence of specific information this assumption is far from certain. The Office of the Human Rights Commissioner of British Columbia, for example, has simply stated that its employees are working remotely until 30 April 2020.

Similar missives have been posted on the websites of the Le Protecteur du Citoyen Quebec, Alberta Ombudsman, Ombudsman Saskatchewan, Manitoba Ombudsman, Ombud New-Brunswick, Nova Scotia Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of the Northwest Territories Ombud. Somewhat surprisingly, a small minority of ombuds-institutions currently have no COVID-19 operational-related information on their websites.

Prison Tower – Jobs For Felons Hub (2016).

International practice

Despite putting on hold its own programme of international visits, the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) has encouraged National Preventive Mechanisms under the OPCAT to continue to exercise their preventive visits function. In key guidance issued this past week, the SPT stated the following:

“Numerous NPMs have asked the SPT for further advice regarding their response to this situation. Naturally, as autonomous bodies, NPMs are free to determine how best to respond to the challenges posed by the pandemic within their respective jurisdictions.” [6]

Even so, the SPT underscored the fundamental importance of conducting visits to all places of deprivation of liberty as broadly defined by the OPCAT:

“The SPT would emphasise that whilst the manner in which preventive visiting is conducted will almost certainly be affected by necessary measures taken in the interests of public health, this does not mean that preventive visiting should cease. On the contrary, the potential exposure to the risk of ill-treatment faced by those in places of detention may be heightened as a consequence of such public health measures taken. The SPT considers that NPMs should continue to undertake visits of a preventive nature, respecting necessary limitations on the manner in which their visits are undertaken. It is particularly important at this time that NPMs ensure that effective measures are taken to reduce the possibility of detainees suffering forms of inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of the very real pressures which detention systems and those responsible for them now face.” [7]

This position has been echoed by other authoritative international bodies, including just last week by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The World Health Organization also chimed this same key point in a recent publication, as discussed on this website.

Prison Riot Squad – Jobs For Felons Hub (2016).

National-level developments

At the national level, detention monitoring practice in the light of the spiraling global COVID-19 crisis appears to be more of a mixed picture.

Fairly early on into the crisis, on 16 March 2020, the French NPM, the Le Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté announced its suspension of visits. Similarly, across la Manche, the next day Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons in England and Wales Peter Clarke stated that the mechanism had postponed future visits for nearly two-and-a-half months. The published statement read:

Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, has announced that all scheduled inspection work involving visits to prisons or other places of State detention in England and Wales has been suspended up to the end of May 2020. This will affect around 15 full inspections, independent reviews of progress and visits as part of thematic inspection work. This decision will be kept constantly under review in the light of COVID-19-related developments.”

Not too long afterwards, on 25 March, the Swiss NPM, the National Commission for the Prevention of Torture followed suite in a letter addressed to the prison and health authorities, ostensibly so as not to overburden the prison authorities.

In Scotland, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, also announced a suspension of all such visits. However, in a statement issued on 31 March the Chief Inspector reaffirmed that the institution was committed “… where possible, to undertake a liaison visit to any prison establishment where we believe the urgency to visit outweighs our precautions related to COVID-19.”

The above position was not entirely dissimilar to the stance adopted by the Canadian Correctional Investigator.

COVID-19 notice – Iain Cameron (2020).

These bodies (all of which are part of the UK NPM) are not alone. Dame Anne Owers, the National Chair of the Independent Monitoring Boards, the lay-visitor prison and immigration detention monitoring scheme in England and Wales, issued a statement on 30 March, marking out a similar position:

“Boards will be able to carry out some limited on-site work where it is safe and feasible to do so. However, we have also developed remote methods of providing some independent assurance at a time of heightened concern for prisoners and detainees.”

Staying in Albion for a moment longer, the overall UK NPM Chair, John Wadham, wrote to Secretary of State Robert Buckland the same day stating the following:

Firstly, NPM members are developing risk criteria that allow them to respond to allegations or concerns about potential ill treatment that warrant some kind of visit to be conducted. In most situations, these visits would be carried out by one or two people and follow a much more targeted methodology than normal inspections/monitoring visits. Secondly, NPM members are developing new approaches to remote forms of monitoring. Given the rapidly changing picture across different detention settings and the severity of the measures that are being imposed (restriction of family visits, long periods of isolation, limitations on exercise and association), NPM members are looking into how they can monitor the situation using data from a range of sources, including from detention authorities themselves, via phone lines and correspondence, and from wider stakeholders.”

Just to add further colour to the palette, Katie Kempen, the Chief Executive of the Independent Custody Visiting Association, the organizational entity supporting the lay-person police visiting scheme in the UK (which is also part of the country’s 21-body NPM), stated on 25 March that such visits could continue. Volunteer independent custody visitors deemed high-risk (due to their age or health) would be exempt from such activities. However, she stressed that remote monitoring possibilities were also being considered.

In sum, a range of options seem to be on the table in the United Kingdom.

It bears noting that the Canadian Correctional Investigator and the UK NPM’s use of a range of options (some remote, some not) to monitor closed settings mirror-image the key advice advanced by the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in last week’s guidance document (please see paragraphs 12 and 13).

Quarantine-related powers

As an interesting aside (at least we think so), at least two NPMs have issued statements, stressing that, despite any public emergency measures, they retain the power to access any compulsorily quarantined individuals and/or related detention facilities.

The Public Defender of Georgia issued a statement on 17 March, noting that her office would consider monitoring facilities or persons who had been quarantined, provided that certain conditions were met, such as the safety of the monitoring team and non-interference with healthcare provision were ensured.

Across the border in Armenia, likewise the Human Rights Defender of Armenia reaffirmed in no uncertain terms in a FAQ document published on 27 March that it cannot be prevented from exercising its monitoring activities during the present state of emergency in the country, remarking:

“Restrictions enforced in the declared state of emergency cannot hinder the activity of the Human Rights Defender. The right to apply to Human Rights Defender is of absolute character and is not subject to restriction in state of emergency.”

Whether the two NPMs in question will actively opt to exercise their stated rights to visit quarantined individuals in places of deprivation of liberty remains to be seen – as the situation unfolds.

Prison Fence Barbed Wire – Jobs For Felons Hub (2016).

In conclusion: staying or going?

As for other detention monitoring entities, concrete information about whether such bodies – to quote our favourite English punk rock band – have decided to stay or to go is somewhat scant.

A random scan of the websites of a range of different inspection mechanisms revealed little concrete information in this connection, including those of the Commissioner for Human Rights in Ukraine, Commissioner for Human Rights in Kazakhstan and the Office of the Inspector of Prisons in Ireland, which remains altogether silent on the issue of COVID-19.

At the time of writing, no information about the curtailment of visits had been posted on the respective websites of the Austrian and German NPMs, the Austrian Ombudsman Board and the National Agency for the Prevention of Torture.

In Moldova, the People’s Advocate (comprising an important element of the country’s NPM) has created a section on its website for the purpose of monitoring human rights violations during the present health crisis. A press release issued on 30 March strongly suggested that the mechanism would be handling any such complaints remotely and would be liaising from a distance with the relevant government agencies. While no direct mention was made of the suspension of visits, one might conclude from the above that this has been in fact the case.

With 71 designated NPMs in the world and numerous other detention oversight mechanisms, the reader will appreciate why this – wholly unintended – mini-research project on the part of the Canada OPCAT Project very quickly ran out of steam. And to think, we barely left Europe!

Thankfully help has come to the rescue in the shape of a recent research initiative by the Expert Network on External Prison Oversight and Human Rights. The latter has arrived at a very timely moment.

The Network, which is hosted by the Independent Corrections and Prisons Association and chaired by the Canadian Correctional Investigator, is aiming to compile information about the impact of COVID-19 on the work of detention monitoring bodies, including the measures taken to respond to this crisis as well as any related lessons learned. The findings of the research, to be shared in future newsletters, will be very revealing of how NPMs and other bodies are adapting to the quickly changing COVID-19 circumstances.

The research will thus no doubt shine a brighter light on the pressing question of how such bodies are continuing to exercise their all-important preventive visiting function in the light of the present-day conditions. Better still, there might even be a PhD in all of this for someone one day…

Thanks for your time, dear readers.


Read the latest newsletter of the Expert Network on External Prison Oversight and Human Rights and learn how to contribute to its COVID-19 monitoring-related research.

See the document, Advice of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to States Parties and National Preventive Mechanisms relating to the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Read the CPT’s Statement of Principles relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in EnglishFrench or Russian.

Consult Penal Reform International’s publication, Coronavirus: Healthcare and human rights of people in prison.

Read the WHO publication, Preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention.

Posted by mp in COVID-19, Independent detention monitors, NPMs, OPCAT

WHO COVID-19 Key Guidance Document

On 23 March 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) – Europe published interim guidance on how to deal with the coronavirus disease in prisons and other places of detention, titled Preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention.

The WHO publication is presently only available in English and can be downloaded here. However, a broad overview of the 30-odd-page guidance document is available in French, German and Russian.

The accompanying press release succinctly explains the overall focus of the document, as follows:

“The guidance provides useful information to staff and health care providers working in prisons, and to prison authorities. It explains how to prevent and address a potential disease outbreak and stresses important human rights elements that must be respected in the response to COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention. Access to information and adequate health care provision, including for mental disorders, are essential aspects in preserving human rights in such places.”

Cover of new WHO publication.

It is stressed in the WHO document that the guidance has application to various places of detention, including:

  • prisons (both public and privately managed);
  • immigration detention settings;
  • detention settings for children and young people.

The intended target audience of the WHO publication is primarily health-care and custodial staff working in prisons and other places of detention. However, it is emphasized that the information given will also be useful for the wider prison authorities, public health authorities and policymakers, prison governors and managers, people in detention, and the social relations of persons deprived of their liberty.

The guidance document is structured across 15 chapters and includes sections with detailed operational information, including: about the COVID-19 virus; preparedness, contingency planning and level of risk; training and education; risk communication; a list of important definitions; and crucial prevention measures. Other chapters relate to the assessment of suspected COVID-19 cases as well as their case management.

Prison 4040 – Sylvia Westenbroek (2006)

For the lay-reader, however, the earlier introductory chapters through 1 to 6 may prove the more interesting and accessible. These sections set out the rationale, scope and objectives and target audience of the WHO publication as well as key planning principles and human rights considerations.

In this latter connection, key points include:

  • The provision of health care for people in prisons and other places of detention is a State responsibility.
  • People in prisons and other places of detention should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the outside community, without discrimination on the grounds of their legal status.
  • Adequate measures should be in place to ensure a gender-responsive approach in addressing the COVID-19 emergency in prisons and other places of detention.
  • Prisons and other detention authorities need to ensure that the human rights of those in their custody are respected, that people are not cut off from the outside world, and – most importantly – that they have access to information and adequate healthcare provision.
  • The COVID-19 outbreak must not be used as a justification for undermining adherence to all fundamental safeguards incorporated in the Nelson Mandela Rules.

It is relevant to note that in the latter section, the following key points concerning the access of independent monitors to closed settings during the current global public health emergency are underpinned, namely:

The COVID-19 outbreak must not be used as a justification for objecting to external inspection of prisons and other places of detention by independent international or national bodies whose mandate is to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; such bodies include national preventive mechanisms under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

Even in the circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, bodies of inspection in the above sense should have access to all people deprived of their liberty in prisons and other places of detention, including to persons in isolation, in accordance with the provisions of the respective body’s mandate.” (p.5).

In this sense the WHO publication reinforces the core guidance advanced in recent weeks by other international authorities, including the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, European Committee on the Prevention of Torture and Penal Reform International.

Canadian prison administrators and human rights actors can download the publication and access other key COVID-19-related materials below.


Read the WHO publication, Preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention.

See the WHO accompanying press release in English and French.

Read Professor Juan Mendez’ recent article on a healthy prison environment.

For other materials please visit the COVID-19: Deprivation of Liberty Information Corner.

Posted by mp in COVID-19, Independent detention monitors, NPMs, OPCAT, Oversight bodies