human rights violations, including authorisation of “unannounced and free access to inspect any public premises” and the undertaking of “rigorous and systematic follow up activities” regarding recommendations and findings made.34 The Commission notes that there is a distinction between the preventative focus of NPMs designated under OPCAT and the more general human rights mandate of NHRIs. Nevertheless, there remains some room for correlation. 31. Notwithstanding the Commission’s CNPM status under OPCAT, the GANHRI Subcommittee on Accreditation has recently recommended that the Commission “access all places of deprivation of liberty…in order to effectively monitor, investigate and report on the human rights situations in these places”.35 32. The Committee may wish to make further inquiries with the Government as to how the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 is meeting its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and international human rights law, including those contained in article 14 of the Convention. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 33. As outlined in the State party report, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) enshrines in domestic law the right not to be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,36 and the right of everyone deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity.37 34. In August 2022, the Government passed the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act. The Aotearoa New Zealand courts and tribunals do not have a power to strike down legislation which is found to be inconsistent with any of the rights contained in the NZBORA.38 However, the Declarations of Inconsistency Amendment Act establishes a procedure which the Government must follow if a court or tribunal makes a declaration of inconsistency, specifically:39 (a) the Attorney-General must notify Parliament of a declaration of inconsistency within six sitting days of such declaration being made final; and (b) the Government must provide a report advising its response to the declaration of inconsistency within 6 months. 35. The Declarations of Inconsistency Amendment Act was enacted in response to a finding of the Supreme Court which recognised the courts’ jurisdiction to make declarations of inconsistency.40 Prior to this, the NZBORA was silent on whether remedies are available to claimants where enactments are found to be inconsistent with the rights contained therein. 36. The NZBORA remains silent as to awarding compensation to persons whose NZBORA rights are found to have been violated by actions or omissions by the state or those exercising public 34 GANHRI, General Observations of the Subcommittee on Accreditation, Adopted by the GANHRI Bureau on 21 February 2018, at p 7 (G.O 1.2) and p 17 (G.O 1.6). 35 GANHRI Subcommittee on Accreditation, 2.7 Aotearoa New Zealand: Aotearoa New Zealand Human Rights Commission (NZHRC), 25 March 2022. 36 NZBORA, s 9. 37 NZBORA, s 23(5). 38 Human Rights Act 1993, s 92K. 39 See New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act; NZBORA, ss 7A and 7B; HRA 1993, ss 92WA and 92WB. 40 See Attorney-General v Taylor [2018] NZSC 104 in which the Court declared that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010, which disenfranchised people in prison, was inconsistent with the right to vote recognised in section 12 of the NZBORA. 11