Ifølge tilleggsprotokollen til FNs torturkonvensjon (OPCAT), har SPT en rådgivende rolle overfor nasjonale forebyggingsorganer. Sivilombudsmannens forebyggingsenhet kontaktet derfor SPT med spørsmål om veiledning i forbindelse med Justis- og beredskapsdepartementets høring om endring i straffegjennomføringsloven: straffegjennomføring i annen stat.
Justis- og beredskapsminister Anders Anundsen signerte i dag en avtale med nederlandske myndigheter om leie av fengselsplasser i Nederland.
Avtalen mellom Norge og Nederland om leie av fengselsplasser må ifølge departementet forelegges Stortinget for godkjenning før den kan tre i kraft. Avtalen skal også forelegges det nederlandske parlamentet før sommeren. Ifølge departementet planlegges det at de første norske innsatte vil bli overført til det nederlandske fengselet Norgerhaven 1. september 2015.
Sivilombudsmannen har avgitt høringsuttalelse i saken.
I uttalelsen refererer ombudsmannen blant annet til SPTs råd om forebyggingsarbeid på tvers av landegrenser:
SPT opinion on cross-border monitoring
1. Should a State party to the OPCAT (a sending State) enter into an arrangement under which those detained by that State are to be held in facilities located in a third State (a receiving State), the SPT considers that the sending State should ensure that such an agreement provides for its National Preventive Mechanism having the legal, and practical, capacity to visit those detainees in accordance with the provisions of the OPCAT and the SPTs Guidelines on NPMs.
2. After undertaking such visits, the NPM of the sending State should be able to present its recommendations and enter into a preventive dialogue with the authorities of both the sending and receiving State. The agreement entered into between the sending and receiving states should provide for this and permit the variation of its terms in the light of the recommendations made.
3. In addition to the above, the NPM of the receiving state will also have the capacity to visit those in detention on the basis of such agreements, as a natural consequence of its general right to visit all those deprived of their liberty on the basis of public authority and under the jurisdiction and control of the State Party.
4. After undertaking such visits, the NPM of the receiving State should be able to present its recommendations and enter into a preventive dialogue with the authorities of both the receiving and sending State. The agreement entered into between the receiving and sending States should provide for this and permit the variation of its terms in the light of the recommendations made.
5. The NPMs of the sending and receiving State should liaise regarding the conduct of such visits, and should consider undertaking joint visits in such circumstances and, where possible, to make joint recommendations.
6. The recommendations made ought to reflect the established approaches of the NPMs in question, which themselves will reflect the approach of the SPT as well as of other international standards. In cases where there is a difference of approach and expectation, the higher expectations will be applicable to those detained on the basis of such agreements as a reflection of the overarching principles of prevention.