Preventing Torture An Operational Guide for National Human Rights Institutions - Updated Edition It is important to bear this distinction in mind as these two approaches employ very distinct strategies and methodologies. They are, however, complementary and both should form part of an integrated strategy to prevent torture. This distinction between direct and indirect prevention has also been used internationally to define prevention of human rights violations more generally.11 An effective preventive strategy requires a certain level of political will to combat torture, which is publicly stated and able to be monitored. Prevention initiatives in an environment where torture is systematically used to silence political opposition have to be carefully examined and weighed against the risk of being instrumentalised. It is important to stress that no State is immune from the risk of torture and ill-treatment. As a result, there is always a need to be vigilant and to develop and implement effective preventive strategies. 1.2. Analysing the risk factors Direct prevention of torture aims at reducing the risks of torture by addressing root causes. It is therefore essential to begin with a thorough identification and analysis of risk factors (those conditions that increase the possibility of torture occurring). These risks factors can be found at different levels. 1.2.1 Risks related to the overall environments The general political environment is an important factor to consider, as a lack of political will to prohibit torture, a lack of openness of governance, a lack of respect for the rule of law, high levels of corruption and impunity, counter-terrorism measures, and militarisation or privatisation of detention and security can all increase the risk of torture. The same is true for the social and cultural environment. Where there is a culture of violence, a public acceptance of torture or high public support to “get tough” on crime, the risk of torture occurring is also increased. The overall institutional environment should also be included in the analysis. The level of accountability and transparency of the authorities, the existence of public policies regarding crime prevention and the effectiveness of complaints mechanisms are factors that can reduce the risk of torture, along with effective independent external actors, such as NHRIs and civil society organizations. The organization and functioning of the criminal justice system, in particular, is an important factor to consider. The level of independence of the judiciary, as well as the level of reliance on confessions in the criminal justice system, will have a direct influence on the risk of torture. As the risk of torture is higher during the initial period of detention, particular attention should be paid to law enforcement authorities. In this regard, the institutional culture, the role and functioning of the police and recruitment and training processes for officers can all positively or negatively influence the risk of torture. The national legal framework should also be analysed. In countries where torture is prohibited in the Constitution and in law, as well as being a specific offence under the criminal code, the risk of torture might be lower than in countries where this is not the case. The analysis should also focus on the rules and regulations that apply to places where persons are deprived of their liberty, as well as the existence of appropriate legal safeguards. In addition, the way in which the legal framework is implemented in practice should be closely analysed. 1.2.3 Places, moments and practices of heightened risks Any situation where persons are deprived of their liberty and when there is an imbalance of power, in which one person is totally dependent on another, constitutes a situation of risk.12 The risk of torture 12 11 Human Rights Council, A/HRC/30/20, 16 July 2015, para. 8-10. 12 See the concept of “powerlessness” developed by the Special Rapporteur on Torture (E/CN.4/2006/6, paras. 39 and 40). Article 10.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes a link between the rights to liberty and personal integrity and states that “[a]ll persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”