National Preventive Mechanism

OPCAT requires State Parties to maintain, designate or establish, an NPM within one year of ratification of the Protocol, with the possibility of postponing implementation of their obligations for a period of up to three years.   Article 18 calls on States to guarantee the functional independence of the NPM and refers institutional designers to the Paris Principles.  A current list of NPMs can be found here.

As the Table below illustrates, although the NPM is not synonymous with the NHRI, in practice two-thirds of designated NPMs are NHRIs – either as a standalone or mixed-agency format.  Notably, four countries with ‘A status’ NHRIs have nevertheless designated or created alternative structures to undertake this function.  For the majority of NHRIs modelled on the human rights ombudsman template, the role of NPM is compatible with their existing mandate – although, it may signify a formalisation of often ad hoc protocols governing detention monitoring and other core OPCAT activities.

In Latin America, NHRIs have been designated NPMs in Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Mexico.  In Honduras, a separate specialised body has been established in accordance with the OPCAT despite the existence of an A status NHRI.  The following countries in Latin America have ratified the OPCAT but are yet to designate an NPM. Signatories to the Optional Protocol are under an obligation to designate or establish an NPM within one year of ratification (article 17 of the OPCAT):

Argentina (15/11/2004) – correspondence on NPM status

Bolivia (23/5/2006) – correspondence on NPM status

Brazil (12/01/2007) – correspondence on NPM status

Guatemala (09/06/2008)

Nicaragua (25/02/2009)

Paraguay (02/12/2005) – correspondence on NPM status

Peru (14/9/2006) – correspondence on NPM status

Table: NHRIs as National Preventive Mechanisms under OPCAT