Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Since the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) entered into force a decade ago, it has been ratified by 88 states, 70 of which have designated their national preventive mechanism (NPM). The vast majority of these are unitary states, which have chosen to create or designate a single national institution as NPM, most often their national human rights institution. There is thus a wide and growing body of practical experience and scholarship relating to this type of NPM and the various advantages and challenges relating to such a system and model. Fewer of the 88 OPCAT ratifying states are federal; but, significantly, many of them have adopted. This article is an attempt to map and categorise the different approaches that federal states have taken to NPM establishment, as well as to draw some tentative conclusions about the advantages and shortcomings of different models. It is hoped this analysis provides insights for the implementation of OPCAT in Australia, particularly in relation to the multiple body NPM that seems likely to be established.
Buckland et al. (Wed,) studied this question.