Presentation by Ms. Elina Šteinerte, Vice-Chairperson of the SPT, of the 2025 SPT annual report to CAT

Dear Chairperson Heller,

Distinguished members of the Committee,

Dear Colleagues,

I am honoured to address you on behalf of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to present our 19th Annual Report, covering activities across the 2025 calendar year. It is deeply regrettable that, owing to the ongoing UN liquidity crisis, the Chairperson of the SPT, Ms Romero, could not be here today to deliver this statement. You may however recall that when Ms Romero was here last year to present the 18th annual report, she stated that that report is being “presented in an increasingly complex global context, marked by armed conflict, crises of governance, forced displacement, the advance of authoritarian governments, the weakening of the rule of law, and the resurgence of discourses that foster intolerance, fear and exclusion”.

The backdrop to the SPT’s 19th Annual Report, deplorably, differs little as the number and complexities of armed conflicts around the globe have risen, the crisis of governance deepened, advances of authoritarianism intensified with yet more forceful assaults on the rule of law which, in turn, have fuelled intolerance, strengthened fear and exclusion and further shaken the very foundations of international law, including international human rights law and the absolute prohibition of torture. And the SPT has faced yet more constraints to deliver our mandate imposed by the UN liquidity crisis- just as the other UN treaty bodies, and, owing to the unique traits of our field-based mandate, arguably even more.

It is without a doubt that the only counterforce to these persistent attacks require yet more forceful and resolute implementation of our UN mandates, for, despite the attacks, the fundamental tenants of international law remained unchanged- and that includes the absolute prohibition of the most abhorrent attack on the very core of human dignity- torture. Because let us not forget- prohibition of torture in international law is absolute: there are no reasons that can justify it, there are no circumstances that can legitimise it. International law permits no derogations from the prohibition of torture, whether we look at the ICCPR, CAT, CRC or CEDAW; neither do the regional human rights treaties. And so we, the SPT and CAT, must be yet more vigilant and yet more resourceful in our work.

SPT’s 19th Annual Report follows the new structure adopted and implemented already with the previous, 18th Annual Report, clearly reflecting the three pillars of the SPT’s mandate as per OPCAT: visits, national preventive mechanisms and international cooperation.

Starting with the visits pillar, the 19th annual report of the SPT is a powerful statement of resourcefulness in the face of most severe limitations imposed upon us by the persistent UN liquidity crisis. As the esteemed colleagues here know all too well, the SPT is a very different treaty body in that our mandate lies in the field and our primary mode for engagement with the OPCAT States parties are the visits to these States and their places of deprivation of liberty. So, for 2025 the SPT had planned and indeed announced eight visits; these were visits to Afghanistan, Burundi, France, Mexico, Mozambique, New Zealand, Peru and Serbia. However, owing to that same UN liquidity crisis, we were only able to carry out four of these visits: to Serbia, Peru, New Zealand and Mozambique- this means that our visiting mandate was cut by half.

During these four visits, we conducted more than 550 interviews with more than 900 people, including persons deprived of their liberty, medical personnel and carers, social workers and educators, security and prison officials, and others. We visited more than 100 places of deprivation of liberty, including prisons for adults, both male and female, as well as those holding children; police stations; psychiatric and healthcare institutions; administrative facilities holding migrants; court holding cells; and variety of social care and drug dependency centers.

Despite there only being four visits in 2025 and each of these visits being to a different geographical region of the world, there are striking commonalities in our findings following these visits: overcrowding, fueled by excessive recourse to pretrial detention and overly punitive criminal justice systems, and limited or even non-existent alternatives to detention, and the prime solution to at times shocking overcrowding levels being proposed by Governments is building yet new prisons or expand the existing ones- which is very much akin to fighting fire with fire.

The SPT saw particularly concerning situation for children in child justice and disturbing trend to treat children as adults by some criminal justice systems; as well as worrying circumstances of persons with disabilities in care placements and deplorable approaches to drug rehabilitation, ignoring the very fundamentals of harm reduction.

Across all four visits, the SPT witnessed challenges posed to the most significant contribution of OPCAT to torture prevention: the work of the NPMs who sometimes do not have adequate legal standing or broad enough mandate and sufficient funding or whose recommendations remain unimplemented for decades.

Please allow me to give you some more concrete details, as noted in the corresponding press releases issued in the aftermath of our visits:

Following our visit to Serbia, the SPT observed that many individuals, including children, spend extended periods in pretrial detention under restrictive conditions, which may increase the risk of ill-treatment; equally institutions for people with disabilities were concerning and the SPT urged further measures to protect persons in such situations of vulnerability against ill-treatment.

At the conclusion of the visit to Peru, the SPT expressed concern over severe prison overcrowding, the widespread use of pretrial detention, remarking that building more or mega prisons is not the solution for overcrowding, or to public security in general. The SPT was also alarmed by the new law that incorporates adolescents aged 16 and 17 as punishable in the adult penal system.

Following the visit to New Zealand, the SPT urged action to reduce the rising prison population, regretting that country’s forward planning appears to focus primarily on building new prison facilities rather than expanding the use of alternatives to detention. To this end, SPT voiced its particular concerns over recently introduced bail restrictions and that children in pre-trial detention do not receive any reduction of their sentences to account for time already spent whilst on remand.

Subsequent to our visit to Mozambique, the SPT urged the Government to capitalize upon its ongoing constitutional reform process as a real opportunity to enshrine the National Preventive Mechanism in law, in full compliance with OPCAT, especially regarding its independence, resourcing and capacity to fully carry out its preventive mandate, which, in turn would mark a significant milestone in the country’s commitment to preventing torture and ill-treatment.

As the esteemed colleagues may recall, the SPT visits are followed by reports to States parties and NPMs, if such have been established, and the reports to States parties remain confidential, unless and until the State party concerned requests their publication in accordance with Art 16 of OPCAT. By 31 December 2025, 95 visit reports had been transmitted to States parties, including 6 during the reporting period, to Albania, Bolivia, Gabon, Greece, Mongolia and Peru. Of these 95 visit reports to States parties, 58 had been made public by 31 December 2025, at the request of States parties, including 3 during the reporting period, on the visits to Croatia, Kazakhstan and Senegal. The SPT welcomes and strongly encourages the publication of its visit reports, as it reflects the spirit of transparency that underpins preventive visiting, facilitates better implementation of the respective recommendations and allows other States parties and national preventive mechanisms to learn from each other’s practices, challenges and progress in torture prevention- this is all especially pertinent in the current context of the UN liquidity crisis which has reduced significantly the SPT’s ability to visit States parties. To this end, the SPT urges CAT to remind and encourage all OPCAT States parties to request the publication of the SPT visit reports promptly.

Turning to the next pillar of the SPT’s mandate, the national preventive mechanisms, 2025 brought five new NPMs to the global NPM family of the OPCAT as the Subcommittee accepted with appreciation notifications from Australia, Benin, Madagascar, Nigeria and South Africa regarding the establishment of their national preventive mechanisms. However, the so-called Article 17 list of States who are significantly overdue with their obligation to establish an NPM, regrettably has remained static with the following 12 States parties listed: Afghanistan, Belize, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Nauru, Philippines, South Sudan and State of Palestine. It remains a matter of the utmost concern to the Subcommittee that some of the States parties on the list, some of whom have been on the list for over a decade, still appear to be making little or no progress towards fulfilling their long-overdue obligations. The SPT reiterates its readiness to advise and assist these States parties in every possible way. We also thank CAT for its efforts to remind these States parties of their obligations vis-à-vis the establishment of the NPM at every opportunity.

There are some 80 NPMs worldwide now and in the 19th annual report, the SPT observes that the majority of these are NHRIs. As we note this, we also recall that the national preventive mechanisms are not to be equated with national human rights institutions, and where the body designated as the NPM performs other functions additional to those set out in the OPCAT, it is important to ensure the visibility of the distinct NPM mandate and identity which may be challenging as, in addition to fulfilling the overall human rights mandate, national human rights institutions are increasingly becoming vested with other mandates stemming from national and/or international commitments. These may include being designated as national equality bodies, whistle-blower protection bodies, anti-corruption offices, data protection institutions, national monitoring mechanisms under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, independent monitoring mechanisms under the Pact on Migration and Asylum of the European Union and national preventive mechanisms. Each of these mandates has a different focus, which must be duly preserved; in that light, and in line with the Optional Protocol, the mandate of the NPM should always be visible and clear, both institutionally and operationally, and the NPMs must always retain a forward-looking, preventive approach, which differs considerably from the protection mandate and more reactive, investigative and complaints-driven approach of the other mandates vested in the same national human rights institution.

Of course, the NPM establishment is a core obligation of each State party but establishment of the NPM is not an end in itself and indeed, in the 19th annual report the Subcommittee has emphasized that the obligations of the State party towards their NPMs do not cease with the fact of NPM establishment but rather are ongoing, especially as these relate to the provision of sufficient resources and engaging in an open dialogue concerning the implementation of the NPM recommendations. The SPT has also clarified that while a State party may choose to change its NPM designation, it is imperative that Optional Protocol requirements are always respected, especially in relation to the powers and mandate of the NPMs and its independence. Crucially, a change in the designation of the NPM does not justify any limitation on its powers, mandate or independence, nor a reduction in the human or financial resources allocated to it.

In 2025, the SPT was delighted to be able to take part, both in person and online, in the annual meetings of NPM Networks of all regions where such Networks exist, as well as provide its advice to the NPMs through webinars on the first General Comment to foster common understanding of the terms “place of deprivation of liberty”. Following the advice to the NPMs in our 18th annual report, on the intersection of drug policies and prevention of torture, in 2025 SPT commenced a series of regional webinars with the NPMs on this crucially important topic, holding two webinars in 2025 and further two in 2026, in collaboration with the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC).

Finally, turning to the third pillar of the SPT’s mandate, cooperation with the other bodies in torture prevention, I first and foremost wish to remark on the close relationship between our two treaty bodies, CAT and SPT- linked not only by the explicit provisions of OPCAT, close ties between the Secretariats which extend to the SPT visits but also by exchanges concerning those States who are parties both the UNCAT and OPCAT and our regular meetings, the latest of which took place on 13 November 2025.

The Subcommittee also continued its cooperation with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and took steps to strengthen cooperation with other regional bodies, including a meeting with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 21 May 2025.

Turning to the States parties, we thank CAT and also urge you to continue to promote ratification of the OPCAT. 2025 brought two new States parties to OPCAT: Bangladesh and Colombia, and so there are currently 96 States parties to the Protocol.

I must also remark on the work of the OPCAT Special Fund as in 2025, grants amounting to $423,926 were awarded to support 16 torture prevention projects in 15 States for implementation in 2026. The donations received are especially welcomed and treasured in the current global context of budget squeezes domestically as well as the UN liquidity crisis and the SPT greatly appreciates the first-time contributions to the Special Fund from Armenia ($5,000) and Saudi Arabia ($50,000), and the continued support from Austria ($81,871), Denmark ($141,000), Germany (€200,000), Spain (€10,000) and Switzerland ($120,000). May I also express a sincere hope that these contributions will endure and, indeed, grow this year and onwards; and thank most sincerely the OHCHR colleagues supporting the Special Fund for their dedicated work.

Dear Chair,

Distinguished Colleagues,

Last year, when presenting the 2024 annual report, we warned that the Subcommittee has continued to face significant operational challenges, mainly due to resource constraints, limiting our ability to conduct the visits we deem necessary. These warnings came true in 2025, with only half of our visits and two (out of three) sessions taking place. The liquidity crisis faced by the United Nations has been felt by all treaty bodies over the past years, but has had a particularly detrimental impact on the Subcommittee and its ability to discharge its mandate under the Optional Protocol, given that the core mandate is preventive visiting. That mandate exists because States recognize that prevention of torture requires a different approach and that regular visits have a positive impact on torture prevention efforts. But that mandate is now being most severely challenged.

As I speak now, with the first quarter of the year passed, the prospect for 2026 appears yet bleaker with mere two visits and just one SPT session confirmed. Against these odds, the SPT has remained resilient and resourceful- not only did we reconfigure our session planning, but by our members agreeing to forego certain entitlements in 2025, we were able to make savings sufficient enough to fund SPT’s visit to Mexico in January 2026- exclusively from these savings. As a treaty body, we remain absolutely committed to the torture prevention architecture of OPCAT, but we cannot deliver on this alone- our creativity and flexibility cannot replace the financial and political commitment of States.

2026 and 2027 present significant anniversaries relating to the Optional Protocol, marking 25 years since the adoption of OPCAT, two decades since the entry into force of the OPCAT and two decades since the establishment of the Subcommittee. It is well overdue that the SPT’s specific and unique mandate and the crucial differences that characterize us, are duly recognized and understood, and that sufficient resources be allocated to undertake our distinct work. Because the work that needs to be done remains the same and every cancelled SPT visit has most direct consequence for persons deprived of their liberty; yet, their predicaments cannot be ignored, and the values that the Subcommittee strives to uphold in the prevention of torture and ill-treatment cannot be compromised.

Many thanks again to the CAT for its support and collaboration. I look forward to the dialogue that will follow this presentation.