Appendix 1– Comparison with other OPCAT jurisdictions This summarises the respective approaches of New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France and Germany in implementing OPCAT. Question New Zealand United Kingdom France Germany Question 1: What is this country's overarching NPM model? National, multiple body NPM framework NZ Human Rights Commission co-ordinates four other NPM bodies that have specific mandates: the Independent Police Conduct Authority; the Office of the Children's Commissioner; the Office of the Ombudsman; and the Inspector of Service Penal Establishments. A single national body the work of multiple statutory bodies. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons carries out the and communication function of the NPM. 21 organisations throughout England, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the NPM. Single national body – (General Controller of places of deprivation of liberty) (CGLPL) National body – constituted by two monitoring bodies operating at a Federal and State level. The two monitoring bodies are the Federal Agency for the Prevention of Torture (Federal Agency) and the Joint Commission of the States (Commission). Together they constitute the National Agency for the Prevention of Torture (Nationalle Stelle zur Verhütung von folter) (National Agency). Question 2: How are NPM activities resourced? Does the national government pay for the inspection functions, or are these costs shared by the national/provincial governments? The five NPM bodies (four monitoring NPM bodies and one co-ordinating NPM body) are funded by the NZ Ministry of Justice. England – Ministry of Justice, Home Office. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – funded by devolved administration (national Parliaments) with some funding from the Home Office. Funded by the national government. One third of the National Agency's funds are provided by the Federation and two thirds are provided by the States. Funds are administered and allocated to the Commission and the Federal Agency by the Ministry of Justice,
Integration and European Affairs. Question 3: Did this country undertake a process to develop national standards regarding: (a) how inspections of places of detention should take place; and (b) the minimum conditions necessary in places of detention to comply with relevant human rights obligations? There are no uniform national standards in respect of inspection procedures and minimum conditions. However, the NZ Human Rights Commission adapted international standards (such as UN guidelines) to produce a chart of standards given to each of the NPM bodies. Each NPM has tailored these to the institutions they visit. There is a substantial level of interaction and consultation between the various NPM bodies in formulating their relevant 'standards'. Each NPM body has different monitoring responsibilities depending on the detention setting. The minimum conditions will also depend on the detention setting. HMIP has published 'Expectations' – ie the standards of treatment and conditions expected of a custodial establishment. They to international human rights standards and the regulations by which the establishment is run. It includes expectations for: prisons, children & young people, Close Supervision Centres, immigration detention, police custody, court custody, UK Armed Forces, and Border Force. Implemented through national legislation (loi 2007/1545) and drawing on decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, relevant French laws, as well as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 No uniform national standards. The Federal Agency has had regard to relevant domestic case law, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the recommendations of the CPT and the SPT. It has also consulted with NGOs and detention facilities. Question 4: Did the country pass national, state/provincial legislation to implement OPCAT into domestic law and practice? If so, what did the legislation broadly cover? If not, did this country undertake a different process to ensure New Zealand passed national legislation to implement OPCAT into domestic law. Legislation passed in 2006 amended the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (COTA). Designation of NPM was by way of Ministerial statement. Subsequent legislation has with the specific powers of NPM and the implementation of OPCAT. The OPCAT Ratification Law was approved by the Senate on 30 July 2008. On 17 December 2008, President Sarkozy passed a decree whereby the text of the protocol officially became the law of France. An "approval statute" (which renders international laws binding under German national law) was passed by the Bundestag on 26 August 2008, implementing OPCAT in its entirety