Preventing Torture An Operational Guide for National Human Rights Institutions - Updated Edition Insights from practice: The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has advocated for OPCAT ratification and implementation for many years. Following the OPCAT signature by South Africa (20 September 2006), an ad hoc committee, the “Section 5 Committee” (now Section 11), was established by the SAHRC to promote OPCAT ratification and implementation. The Committee was composed of representatives from the Government, Parliament, civil society organizations and existing monitoring bodies. Several workshops involving the Commission were also held over the years. In 2016, the Commission also submitted a business plan and engaged in regular dialogue with the government on NPM designation. South Africa finally ratified the OPCAT on 20 June 2019 and designated a multiple body National Preventive Mechanism coordinated and functionally led by the South African Human Rights Commission. 1.2. Consultation process regarding possible NPM Under the Optional Protocol, NPMs have a mandate to regularly examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in places of detention. They are also required to make recommendations to the authorities on the prevention of torture and to submit observations on relevant existing or draft legislation. In order for them to perform this mandate, States parties must guarantee NPMs functional independence, as well as the independence of their members. They must also make available the necessary resources for the effective functioning of the NPM. They must ensure that NPM members and staff have the required capabilities and professional knowledge to perform the role. The NPM composition should also ensure gender balance and adequate representation of ethnic and minority groups in the country. In addition, NPMs must be granted certain powers regarding (unannounced) access to places of detention, access to information, the opportunity to interview persons deprived of their liberty in private, and the right to choose where they visit and who to interview. The Optional Protocol does not prescribe any particular organizational form for NPMs. States are able to decide the most suitable option, taking into account their national, social, political and economic context. It is incumbent on States to thoroughly analyse and assess the various options available to them. This analysis should be undertaken in an open and transparent manner, as recommended by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in its guidelines125 on NPMs. NHRIs should be part of this consultation process, together with other national actors, such as relevant Government officials, existing monitoring bodies, civil society organisations, trade unions, professional organizations and Members of Parliament. It may also be useful to seek the advice of other NPMs in the same region or in similar contexts and, in some cases, regional and international organisations such as the SPT. Relevant Government agencies should proactively publicise the process, opportunities for participation and the criteria, methods and reasons for the final decision on the NPM model – ideally chosen through consensus among those engaged in the consultation process. This process can take place through meetings and workshops, as well as online and through calls for written comment or contribution. Ideally, the consultation process should start with a mapping of existing oversight and monitoring institutions, considering their ability to meet the OPCAT key requirements as well as practical issues, including: 125 132 Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms, CAT/OP/12/5, 9 December 2010, para. 16.