Introduction: the concept of torture prevention and its application sets out a mechanism to assist States parties to meet these obligations by establishing a system of regular visits to places of detention by independent international and national bodies. Although States have a duty to prevent torture, it is often not applied in practice and there is commonly a lack of understanding about the concept of torture prevention. In 2016, the academic research ‘Does torture prevention work’’7 showed that prevention strategies are effective in reducing torture. Covering a period of 30 years (1984-2014) and 16 countries,8 the research applied a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods analysing the correlation, in law and practice, between the incidence of torture and a set of 66 preventive measures. It shows that detention safeguards, prosecution and unannounced visits to places of detention are the most effective means. Country chapters also highlight the important role of NHRIs in preventing torture. This introduction defines torture prevention, outlines an integrated strategy to prevent torture and describes the preventive role that NHRIs can play. 1. What does “torture prevention” mean? This section proposes first a definition of ‘prevention of torture’, and then analyses those factors contributing to increasing the risks of torture. 1.1. Defining “prevention of torture” According to the Chambers Dictionary, “to prevent” means “to stop (someone from doing something, or something from happening), to hinder, to stop the occurrence of, to make impossible, to avert.” In public health, prevention is a common strategy in the fight against diseases, aimed at avoiding the emergence, development and spread of epidemics. Crime prevention “comprises strategies and measures that seek to reduce the risk of crimes occurring, and their potential harmful effects on individuals and society by intervening to influence their multiple causes.”9 These definitions, while instructive, are insufficient to properly define the concept of prevention in relation to torture and other forms of ill-treatment. At a time where many interventions in the fight against torture are described as “prevention”, it is important to distinguish between two different forms of torture prevention. This distinction is based on when the intervention occurs and the approach that is employed. Direct prevention (mitigation) aims to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment from occurring by reducing the risk factors and eliminating possible causes. This intervention happens before torture and ill-treatment take place and aims to address the root causes that can lead to torture and ill-treatment, through training, education and regular monitoring of places of detention. Direct prevention is forward-looking and, over the long term, aims to create an environment where torture and ill-treatment are not likely to occur.10 Indirect prevention (deterrence/non-recurrence) takes place once cases of torture or ill-treatment have already occurred and is focused on avoiding the repetition of such acts. Through investigation and documentation of past cases, denunciation, litigation, prosecution and sanction of the perpetrators, as well as reparation for victims, indirect prevention aims to convince potential torturers that the “costs” of torturing are greater than any possible “benefits”. 7 Richard Carver and Lisa Handley, Does Torture Prevention Work?, Liverpool University Press, 2016. 8 Argentina, Chile, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Peru, Philippines; South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom. 9 United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime, Economic and Social Council resolution 2002/13, para. 3. 10 In the medical field, this is called “primary prevention” (i.e. all the measures taken to reduce the risk of occurrence of a disease). 11