C Explanatory memorandum
by Ms Octavie Modert, rapporteurNote
1 Introduction
1. The fundamental right to be
free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, as enshrined
in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5) (“ECHR”), is of paramount importance. In 1987, the European Convention
for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (ETS No. 126) (“the Convention”) was adopted,
Note establishing
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The CPT is
widely regarded as one of the Council of Europe’s greatest achievements
in promoting the principles of Article 3 of the ECHR. Mandated to
carry out periodic and ad hoc visits to all places of detention
within the jurisdiction of the contracting parties, the CPT plays
a crucial practical role in eradicating torture and inhuman or degrading
treatment across all States that are party to the Convention. Therefore,
it is essential to ensure that the members of the CPT have the necessary
moral standing, professional qualifications, personal implication,
independence, impartiality and commitment to contribute to the effective
a functioning of the CPT.
2. The Assembly should take stock and re-examine the national
procedure for the selection of candidates to the CPT, the procedure
within the Council of Europe, and the criteria followed in the selection/election
of the members of the CPT. The latest reports that the Assembly
prepared on this topic were adopted in 2017 (
Resolution 2160 (2017) “25 years of the CPT: achievements and areas for improvement”),
in 2011 (
Resolution 1808
(2011) “Strengthening torture prevention mechanisms in Europe”)
and in 2007 (
Resolution
1540 (2007) “Improving selection procedures for CPT members”). Although
the practice of the Assembly on the selection/election of CPT members
has evolved and consolidated over the years, there is still need
for greater clarity and transparency for the involved stakeholders.
While the Assembly has recently applied, by analogy, certain rules governing
the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, it
is now time to incorporate those rules explicitly into a text directly
applicable to the selection and election of members of the CPT.
3. My considerations and proposals in this report will be primarily
informed by my experience as former Chair of the Sub-Committee on
Human Rights (2024-2025). This role gave me considerable insight
into the procedure for selecting/electing CPT members. The Sub-Committee
is the main body within the Assembly responsible for examining the
lists of CPT candidates submitted by national delegations and recommending an
order of preference for each list. This recommendation must subsequently
be endorsed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and
by the Assembly’s Bureau, before being transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers for the purpose of electing one candidate in respect of
each member State. During the preparation of this report, the committee
held an exchange of views with Mr Alan Mitchell, President of the
CPT, on 1 December 2025 in London. I would like to thank Mr Mitchell
for very valuable insights into the selection/election process,
as well as the criteria required to become a CPT member and the
associated challenges.
2 Selection and election procedure of
the members of CPT
5. Article 5 of the Convention establishes that members of the
CPT are elected for a term of four years and may be re-elected twice.
Typically, the Committee is divided into two groups (Group A and
Group B), each comprising approximately half of the members, to
ensure that half of the Committee is renewed every two years. To
maintain this balance, the Convention determines that the Committee
of Ministers may decide, prior to any election, that some new members
shall serve terms other than four years. However, such terms must not
be shorter than two years or longer than six years.
6. The selection of the members of the CPT starts at the national
level, when each State Party to the Convention selects three candidates,
and national delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly submit the
list of three candidates to the Assembly. Subsequently, the Sub-Committee
on Human Rights of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
will examine the list on the basis of the candidates’ CVs. It can
then either accept the list and rank the candidates in order of
preference or recommend to reject it for substantive or procedural
reasons. The Sub-Committee’s recommendation must then be endorsed
by the plenary Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and
afterwards by the Bureau of the Assembly. It is at this stage that
the Bureau draws up the list of candidates to be transmitted to
the Committee of Ministers, in accordance with Article 5.1 of the
Convention. Only if the list is forwarded by the Secretary General
of the Parliamentary Assembly (with the order of preference as approved
by the Bureau) to the Committee of Ministers, can one of the candidates
be elected by the Committee of Ministers. If there is a recommendation
for a rejection of the list (which must also be endorsed by the
Committee and the Bureau), the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly
will ask the national delegation to put forward a fresh list. This
will inevitably delay the election of a member by the Committee
of Ministers. In this section I will first address the selection
of the three candidates at the national level. I will then examine
the procedure once these are proposed to the Council of Europe.
2.1 Selection
of candidates at the national level
7. According to Article 5.1 of
the Convention, each national delegation must put forward three
candidates. How they should do it is established in various texts
of the Assembly.
8. Resolution 1540
(2007) called for national selection procedures to:
- include a public call for candidatures;
- include a consultation on suitable candidates with relevant
State and non-governmental bodies (for example, ministries of justice,
interior and health, prison administration, academic institutions
and NGOs active in the fight against torture and in assistance to
persons deprived of their liberty);
- assess the qualifications, motivation, availability, and
languages of candidates through interviews, if possible, done by
an independent panel of experts;
- have the national delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly
play an active role in the final phase of the selection;
- promote the use of a standard CV.
9. Resolution 1808
(2011) called on national delegations to make the procedure
more transparent, according to the indications in
Resolution 1540 (2007). In this regard,
Resolution
2160 (2017) established that national delegations should provide
an explanation of the procedure they followed, along with the CVs
of the shortlisted candidates. This is done in practice through
the letter that the national delegation sends when submitting the
list.
Resolution 2160
(2017) also called on national delegations to ensure that the
candidates have an excellent command of at least one of the official
languages of the Council of Europe, and at least a passive knowledge
of the second official language.
10. With the purpose of getting a comprehensive understanding
of the various national selection procedures, the secretariat has
prepared a table that I attach to this report as Appendix I. It
has been completed with the information provided to the Assembly
by each national delegation in the past three years (2023-2026), without
doing additional inquiries. It contains information on the selection
body, the call for applications, and the criteria/process that countries
use to evaluate the candidates. When the information is available,
I have also indicated the period that candidates have to submit
their applications, and how languages are assessed.
11. The CPT should in principle have 47 members, one for each
State Party to the Convention. The 46 member States of the Council
of Europe and the Russian Federation, which is still a State Party
to the Convention (until 1 November 2026).
Note Currently there are four vacant
seats: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia and the Russian
Federation. The observations below are based on the last selection procedures
conducted by all 46 member States of the Council of Europe during
the period 2023-2026.
12. From these 46 national procedures, the information that I
have varies greatly from one to another. While some national delegations
provide the Assembly with many details on the procedure, others
do not share enough for me to get a clear picture of its functioning.
This already demonstrates that each national delegation fulfils
the obligation of providing information about the national procedure
(
Resolution 2160 (2017)) and of making it more transparent (
Resolution 1808 (2011)) to varying degrees.
13. The comparative table in the Appendix focusses on the following
aspects: the selection body; the participation of the national delegation
of the Parliamentary Assembly in the procedure; consultations with State
and non-State entities in choosing the three candidates; the way
of announcing the call for applications; the use of interviews to
assess candidates; the evaluation of language skills; and the length
of the application period.
2.1.1 Participation
of the national delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly in the
national selection procedure
14. Regarding the involvement of
national delegations to the Assembly in the national selection procedure –
as outlined in
Resolution
1540 (2007) – the comparative overview reveals the following: In
11 national procedures, the delegation plays no decision-making
role in the selection process. In these cases, its role may be limited
to publishing the public call or transmitting the list to the Parliamentary
Assembly. In 20 member States, the national delegation – or part
of it – participates in the process alongside other entities or
individuals (including parliamentary committees or other MPs not
part of the delegation to the Assembly), either as part of a panel
or committee, or by taking the final decision after receiving advice
from a third party (e.g. a committee of experts or a governmental
body). In some of these cases, the interview with the shortlisted
candidates is only conducted by the advisory body and not by the
delegation itself (France). In others, the delegation also meets
the shortlisted candidates following interviews by the selection
or advisory panel (Lithuania and the United Kingdom). In 10 national
procedures, the national delegation alone is responsible for selecting
the three candidates at the national level. If we take into account
those countries where the delegation plays an important role in
the process, a majority of member States (at least 30) now involve
the national delegation to the Assembly in a substantial way in
the national selection process, and not merely as a channel of transmission. This
development is welcome and should be further encouraged as good
practice to be followed by the 11 States where the delegation seems
to play no substantial role.
15. With regard to other member States (5), the information provided
is scarce or does not permit a clear assessment of the delegation’s
involvement in the selection process.
2.1.2 Participation
of other State and non-State bodies
16. The comparative table also
includes information on the extent to which consultations with State
and non-Sate bodies are conducted during the selection of candidates,
as encouraged by
Resolution 1540 (2007). In the 10 instances where only the national delegation
is involved in the selection procedure, no such consultations take
place, except in Cyprus where the Office of the Ombudsman is consulted.
However, consultations with different State and non-State bodies
are present in other national selection procedures, mostly through
their participation in the selection committee itself.
17. The following are examples of State and non-State bodies participating
in the national selection procedure: the ministries of justice (in
at least 15 member States), interior (in at least 8 member States),
foreign affairs (10 member States) or health (5 member States),
prison administration (3 member States), national human rights institutions,
including those with a specific focus on persons deprived of liberty
(9 member States), representatives of non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) (6 member States) and academics (3 member States). In some
countries, the judiciary can also be represented in the selection
committee or participate in the procedure by nominating candidates
(Lithuania and Portugal).
18. In my opinion, the national selection body should have a balanced
composition and include both governmental and non-governmental experts
in the fields covered by the CPT, as well as members of the delegation
to the Assembly. The interviews should always be conducted by this
body, rather than only by the delegation or a purely governmental
selection panel. This would help to ensure the necessary expertise, independence
and transparency when assessing the candidates’ qualifications,
professional experience and motivation. Balanced, multi-stakeholder
panels of this kind, can be found, for example, in Croatia, the Netherlands
and Spain. For the legitimacy of the selection procedure, it is
crucial that panel members be independent from candidates and recuse
themselves in the event of any conflict of interest.
2.1.3 Public
call for candidatures
19. When looking at the use of
a public call for candidatures (
Resolution 1540 (2007)) to start the selection procedure, at least 40 countries
have done so. From the six remaining, two seem not to have made
a public call, and four do not provide enough information to make
an assessment. This represents a substantial improvement compared
with the situation in 2007, when a previous Assembly rapporteur
carried out a similar comparative survey and found that only four
States organised some kind of public call for candidatures.
Note At our committee
hearing, Mr Mitchell stated that publication in an official journal
alone seems insufficient to reach suitable candidates. He noted
that calls should also be disseminated through social media, professional networks,
and trade unions, especially those representing relevant practitioners.
2.1.4 Interviews
20. The use of interviews in national
procedures (
Resolution
1540 (2007)) has become an extended practice. 36 countries did so,
8 countries did not,
Note and 2
have not provided clear information. This is again an important
development, given that in 2007 less than half of the countries
participating in the survey organised interviews with shortlisted
candidates (around 13). I consider that interviews by the selection
panel should be mandatory for all countries. Failure to organise
them should from now on lead to a systematic rejection of the list
by the Assembly.
Note
2.1.5 Language
assessment
21. Most of the countries that
gave details on the criteria they followed to select the three candidates included
their language skills, as stipulated by
Resolution 1540 (2007) and
Resolution 2160 (2017). Only 13 specify how they assess such level. The candidates
either do part of the interview in English or French, a level test,
or there is a language expert present. On this issue, I also believe
that interviews by the selection panel should always include an
assessment, with the assistance of language experts, of at least
one of the official languages of the Council of Europe, English
or French. Good command of at least of these languages is essential
for carrying out visits to member States and for participating in
CPT’s deliberations.
2.1.6 Application
period
22. The length of the application
period is crucial to ensuring that the call for candidates reaches
as many people as possible and provides a genuine opportunity to
apply. However, many national delegations have not shared this information
with the Assembly and this issue has not been mentioned in any Recommendation
or Resolution by the Assembly. While there is no objection to long
application periods – since they only increase accessibility – a
minimum duration should be established for the submission of applications
in all national procedures. Based on the available data from national
procedures that include a public call, three States publish the
call for 15 days or less, which appears too short for an open and
inclusive selection process. Drawing on the Assembly’s recommendations
regarding national selection procedures for the position of Judge at
the European Court of Human Rights,
Note I consider that the
minimum application period should be one month.
2.2 Procedure
before the Council of Europe statutory organs
23. Article 5.1 of the Convention
provides that, once each national delegation submits three candidates,
the Assembly (its Bureau) draws up a list of names. The Committee
of Ministers then elects the member of the CPT from this list.
24. Article 5.1 of the Convention also regulates the election
of a member in respect of a non-member State of the Council of Europe
which is a State Party to the Convention. It establishes that the
Bureau of the Assembly shall invite the Parliament of the State
to put forward three candidates. The election by the Committee of
Ministers shall take place after consultation with the Party concerned.
This procedure has not been put in place for the Russian Federation,
which is the only State Party to the Convention that is not a member
State (since 2022 and only until 1 November 2026).
2.2.1 Procedure
within the Assembly: Sub-Committee on Human Rights, Committee on
Legal Affairs and Human Rights and Bureau of the Assembly
25. In practice, in the procedure
within the Assembly, the Bureau does not examine the candidatures
itself to ensure they meet the criteria set by the Assembly or those
established by the Convention. Instead, this responsibility is delegated
to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which further
delegates the task to its Sub-Committee on Human Rights. The delegation
from the Bureau to the Committee was endorsed in
Resolution 1248 (2001). According to the text of a motion for a resolution
dated March 2005 (
Doc. 10471) the Sub-Committee on Human Rights had already been
entrusted with this responsibility by that time,
Note a responsibility that
still holds nowadays, in accordance with its terms of reference.
26. In relation to the procedure within the Sub-Committee on Human
Rights,
Resolution 1540 (2007) encouraged the Sub-Committee to give particular weight
to the preferences expressed by national delegations, provided that
the national selection procedures are deemed satisfactory. In this
context, the resolution also encouraged the Sub-Committee to systematically
invite the heads of national delegations to meetings concerning
lists of candidates, in order to provide additional information
on both the candidates and the national selection procedures. Both
recommendations are applied in practice, although heads of delegations
can be represented by other members of the national delegation.
If a national delegation cannot participate in the meeting to present
the list, the Sub-Committee cannot proceed to its examination. In
the light of my experience as former Chair of the Sub-Committee,
I believe we should only invite the head of a national delegation
to present the list and the national procedure orally where there
is a genuine issue to be discussed in terms of procedure or merits
of the candidates. Otherwise, the assessment could be based exclusively
on the CVs and the information obtained from the national delegations,
if necessary through additional written questions from the secretariat
and the Chair. This would also enable the Sub-Committee to carry
out other work within its wider mandate, such as exchanges of views
with experts on human rights issues and maintaining relations with
UN human rights bodies.
27. Resolution 1540
(2007) encouraged the Sub-Committee to collect, through its
chair, objective facts such as availability or language skills relating
to the work of incumbent members seeking re-election, in particular from
the CPT’s Bureau. It is understandable that the CPT may wish to
continue to benefit from the accumulated experience of incumbent
members, rather than having a new member every four years (the term
of office, which can be renewed twice). This information sharing
is established practice and implemented through the regular exchanges
between the secretariat of the Sub-Committee and the secretariat
of the CPT. However, these exchanges are not limited to information
on incumbent members seeking re-election but have in practice evolved
to include systematically the CPT Bureau’s preferences on the lists
of candidates, which are generally taken into account by the Sub-Committee.
These preferences are communicated by the Chair of the Sub-Committee
to the national delegation concerned.
28. Resolution 1248
(2001) established that the Committee on Legal Affairs and
Human Rights must ensure that candidates proposed by national delegations
meet the criteria set out in
Recommendation
1323 (1997) ‒ namely professional background, gender, and age, having
regard to the need for a more balanced composition of the CPT. If
these criteria are not met, the Committee is to recommend that the
Bureau request a new list of candidates. The Assembly also instructed
the Committee to rank the candidates in order of preference and draw
up a recommendation to the Assembly Bureau with this order. Furthermore,
Resolution 1540 (2007) encouraged the Sub-Committee to reject lists of candidates
when relevant information is missing, when not all candidates fulfil
the minimum requirements under the Convention (rejection on substantive
grounds), and when the list does not include at least one man and
one woman, except when all candidates on the list are of the sex under-represented
on the CPT (less than 40%). Finally,
Resolution 2160 (2017) established that the Assembly should reject any list
put forward in which the national selection procedure does not comply
with the Assembly resolutions (rejection on procedural grounds),
as well as any list where a candidate holds a position giving rise to
a potential conflict of interest and does not commit to relinquish
that position if elected.
29. In practice, the Sub-Committee has recommended to reject lists
on substantive and procedural grounds on several occasions, although
this does not happen very often.
30. The Sub-Committee has also accepted single-sex lists when
the relevant gender was not under-represented (e.g. all-female lists
from Armenia, Sweden and Bosnia and Herzegovina recently). This
has been done by applying the rules on the election of judges to
the ECHR
mutatis mutandis.
Note In my view, some aspects of the
procedure could be codified or regulated more explicitly for the
CPT procedure, possibly by incorporating or adapting some of the
rules foreseen for the election of judges. In this regard, the rules
applicable to the election of judges to the Court provide that in
exceptional circumstances, when a State has taken all the necessary
and appropriate steps to ensure that the list contains candidates
of both sexes, the committee (on the Election of Judges to the European
Court of Human Rights) may consider a single-sex list even when
the candidates do not belong to the underrepresented sex. Such exceptional
circumstances must be duly considered by a two-thirds majority of
the votes cast by the members of the committee, and this must be
ratified by the Assembly in the framework of the Progress Report
of the Bureau. A similar rule could be established for lists of
candidates to the CPT, but with ratification by the Bureau, the
body responsible for transmitting the list to the Committee of Ministers.
In any event, exceptions should be applied cautiously, and the general
rule should be that the list must contain candidates of both sexes.
This applies even when neither sex is under-represented on the CPT,
as is currently the case (see Appendix II: CPT membership as of
13 July 2026).
31. The recommendation (for rejection or ranking the candidates
in order of preference) drawn up by the Sub-Committee on Human Rights
must be endorsed by the full Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights. Subsequently, it must be approved by the Bureau of the Assembly.
In
Resolution 1540 (2007), the Sub-Committee and the Bureau were encouraged to
provide succinct reasons for their respective recommendations. This
is now done through the tables presented by the Chair of the Sub-Committee
to the Committee, which are later forwarded by the Secretary General
of the Assembly to the Committee of Ministers. These tables contain
a short summary of the candidates’ professional background and may
give an idea of the reasons behind the Sub-Committee’s proposal.
In my view, we could also indicate more clearly in future whether
one or two candidates are considered to be significantly more qualified
than the other(s). This would provide the Committee of Ministers
more information to help them make their final decision and avoid,
for example, electing the candidate deemed least qualified by the
Assembly.
2.2.2 Election
by the Committee of Ministers
32. At the final stage, the list
of three candidates (in order of preference) drawn up by the Assembly
is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for election. It is
possible for the Committee of Ministers to deviate from the order
of preference indicated by the Assembly, since the Assembly only
recommends and does not take the final decision. This does not happen
often. Out of a total of 42 elections in the last three years (2023-2025),
it has only happened four times (Croatia, Switzerland and Ukraine
in 2025; Italy in 2023). The reasons for such deviations are not
always clear. I therefore propose stating in the draft recommendation
to the Committee of Ministers that they should be avoided, if we
are to take the role of the Assembly in this process seriously.
2.2.3 Withdrawal
of lists
33. Regarding the possibility to
withdraw a list of candidates once the list is transmitted to the
Assembly, the Sub-Committee has applied the rules applicable to
the procedure for the election of judges,
mutatis
mutandis.Note For
instance, we considered in one case that the withdrawal of the list
was not possible once the deadline given by the Assembly to submit
the list had expired. In such a case, the national delegation could
not withdraw or modify the list of candidates. This rule could be
explicitly codified in the draft resolution. It would be particularly relevant
in situations where, for example, a new parliamentary majority seeks
to withdraw or modify the list submitted by the previous majority,
a practice which should be avoided. However, as with the procedure
for the election of judges, if a candidate himself or herself decides
to withdraw from the list, the procedure before the Assembly should
be interrupted and the national delegation should be invited to
complete the list by replacing the candidate who has withdrawn.
Note
2.2.4 Interviewing
or electing candidates?
34. It is also worth mentioning
that some measures affecting the procedure within the Council of
Europe have been included in past resolutions of the Assembly but
have never been put into practice.
35. In
Resolution 1540
(2007), the Assembly encouraged the Sub-Committee on Human
Rights to interview candidates on a case-by-case basis if it finds
that information provided in the curriculum vitae or by the chair of
the national delegation concerned is not sufficient in order to
enable it to make an enlightened choice, or if the national pre-selection
procedures are considered unsatisfactory.
36. In
Resolution 1808
(2011) (and reiterated in
Resolution 2160 (2017)), it was proposed to make the Parliamentary Assembly
responsible for the election of the members of the CPT. In said
resolution, it is argued that it would vest the members of the CPT
with enhanced democratic legitimacy and authority and that this
way the same body would evaluate the candidates submitted by the
national delegations and conduct the election. This would require
amending the Convention and would have far-reaching consequences
for the Assembly, which would need to be considered.
37. In
Resolution 2160
(2017), the Assembly resolved to consider ways and means of
improving its own selection procedure with a view to better assessing
the language proficiency of the candidates, by refining its model
CV for candidates and, if possible, by conducting long-distance
interviews with them.
38. I do not propose reiterating these last three proposals, as
I consider that they are not realistic at this stage. They would
also have considerable budgetary and practical implications for
the Assembly and the Committee’s work. If the election of CPT members
remains within the competence of the Committee of Ministers, given
the likely reluctance to amend the Convention, I do not see why
the Assembly should increase its investment in the selection process
by interviewing candidates, at the risk that the Committee of Ministers may
ultimately not follow its recommendations. Furthermore, if interviews
of the candidates were to be held, a considerable amount of extra
time for Sub-Committee meetings would be required every two years
(for the consideration of more than 20 lists with three candidates
each).
2.2.5 Special
case scenarios: selection and election of CPT members in respect
of non-member States of the Council of Europe and member States
with no delegation in the Assembly
39. Finally, I would like to address
two procedural scenarios which are neither clear nor sufficiently regulated.
First, the scenario where a non-member State is a State Party to
the Convention. Article 5.1 (second sub-paragraph) of the Convention
provides that in such cases the Bureau of the Assembly shall invite
the Parliament of the State concerned to put forward three candidates,
without referring to the “national delegation” or to the Assembly’s
Bureau “drawing up” a list of candidates. However, if the State
Party is a State whose parliament enjoys an observer or partnership
for democracy status with the Assembly, the Assembly could invite
the delegation concerned to submit the list and, where appropriate,
participate in the meeting of the Sub-Committee, whose recommendations
would also need to be endorsed by the Bureau of the Assembly. In
such a case, the procedure would not differ significantly from that
applicable to Council of Europe member States, save that the Committee
of Ministers would need to establish an ad hoc election procedure
after consulting the State concerned. If the State concerned has
no co-operation status with the Assembly, the procedure could be limited
to transmitting an invitation to the parliament concerned and forwarding
the list submitted to the Committee of Ministers.
40. Second, as regards member States which do not have a national
delegation in the Assembly for a prolonged period (due to the non-submission
or non-ratification of credentials), one solution would be for the Assembly
to address the invitation directly to the national parliament concerned
and for the Committee/Sub-Committee/Bureau to examine the list submitted
by that parliament, applying the same rules and requirements. In
such a scenario, any question regarding the national selection procedure
or the candidates could be discussed either with the ambassador/permanent
representative to the Council of Europe or with the national parliament
itself. In my view, the political decision not to submit or ratify
the credentials of a national delegation should not affect the full
participation of the member State concerned in the protection mechanism
established by the Convention on the CPT, nor its obligation to
submit a list of candidates in full compliance with the Assembly’s
requirements.
3 Substantive
and other criteria followed for the selection and election of the
members of the CPT
41. The criteria are established
both in the Convention and in the Assembly’s resolutions and recommendations.
They must be taken into consideration first during the national
selection procedures and then by the Council of Europe bodies.
3.1 Professional
expertise
42. Article 4.2 of the Convention
indicates that members of the Committee shall be chosen from among persons
of high moral character, known for their competence in the field
of human rights or having experience in the areas covered by the
Convention. The Explanatory Report specifies that members “do not
have to be lawyers”, and that it would be “desirable that the Committee
should include members who have experience in matters such as prison
administration and the various medical fields relevant to the treatment
of persons deprived of their liberty”.
43. Resolution 1323
(1997) stated that particular attention should be paid to the
criteria of professional background, gender and age, in order to
ensure a more balanced composition of the CPT and, in particular,
a greater participation of prison specialists and forensic scientists.
Resolution 1808 (2011) added that members of the CPT must have high professional
qualifications and personal merits.
Resolution 2160 (2017) recalled that special qualities and skills are expected
of CPT members.
44. In relation to the field of expertise of the candidates,
Resolution 1808 (2011) invited national delegations to make the selection procedures
better suited to the needs of the CPT. To that end, the Secretary
General of the Assembly, in her letters to the Chairpersons of national
delegations triggering the procedure for the election of a member,
includes indications from the President of the CPT specifying the
professional background needed. In 2024, the President expressed
a need for the following profiles: prison doctors, forensic psychiatrists,
civil psychiatrists (with child/adolescence specialty if possible),
and persons with experience of running prisons. At our hearing of
1 December 2025, Mr Mitchell reiterated the need for practitioners,
in particular doctors (general practitioners, psychiatrists and
forensic doctors), prison and police professionals with operational
experience, and specialists in the care of children. There is currently
a good representation of practicing lawyers, psychologists and academics
(legal and criminology).
3.2 Independence
and impartiality
45. Article 4.4 of the Convention
determines that members must serve in their individual capacity,
be independent and impartial.
Recommendation
1323 (1997) specified that the Committee of Ministers should make
the office of member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe incompatible with that of CPT member. This may be justified
by the fact that the Assembly itself participates in the procedure
leading to the election of CPT members, and electing a sitting member
of the Assembly could be perceived as giving rise to a potential
conflict of interest.
NoteResolution 1540 (2007) established that there should not be members that at
central government level are in charge of the definition of national
policies in the sector concerned and who could be held politically
responsible for any shortcomings.
Resolution 2160 (2017) further specified that a candidate holding a decision-making
position which implies defining and/or implementing policies at
national level or that has any other situation that may give rise
to a conflict of interests should in principle not be selected.
In case it is considered that a candidate might have a conflict
of interest,
Resolution 1808 (2011) and
Resolution
2160 (2017) established that the person in question shall be required
to undertake in writing that he or she will relinquish the functions
that give rise to such conflict if elected.
46. The issue of potential conflicts of interest is one of the
most difficult to assess, as we have seen recently within the Sub‑Committee.
It is often hard to draw the line as to whether a senior civil servant
or public official holds a “decision‑making position which implies
defining and/or implementing policies at national level”, or not. I
believe that a flexible, case‑by‑case approach should be followed,
since the mere fact that a candidate is a public official should
not, in itself, exclude them. At the same time, the CPT is not a
committee of governmental experts, but of independent experts, and
although there is no reason to call into question the subjective independence
and impartiality of senior public officials, appearances also matter.
The CPT must appear as an independent and impartial body with no
link to the governments whose national policies in matters relating
to deprivation of liberty are being scrutinised. The CPT carries
out an expert-based monitoring through on-site visits and a dialogue
with the authorities in order to address shortcomings. While the
national CPT members are generally excluded from visiting places
of detention in the country in respect of which they have been elected
[and even from participating in the deliberations on the draft reports
on that country], they are members of a collegial body and may be
perceived as having a conflict of interest if they simultaneously
hold decision-making positions in specific sectors, particularly
those covered by the CPT work.
47. Another element which must be taken into consideration in
this context is the availability of candidates. It is not only a
question of appearance of independence and impartiality. It is also
essential to assess whether a senior public official can devote
sufficient time to CPT work, including being available at short
notice and for a minimum of approximately 40 days per year.
48. During the preparation of this report, the question arose
whether an MP (not necessarily a member of the Assembly) could serve
simultaneously as a CPT member. In my opinion, this should clearly
be avoided, not only on grounds of independence and impartiality,
but also in terms of availability.
3.3 Availability
49. Article 4.4 of the Convention
additionally establishes that members shall be available to serve
the Committee effectively. Which is further specified in various
resolutions:
- in Recommendation 1323 (1997) the Assembly called the Committee of Ministers to emphasise
the criterion of availability in order to ensure the CPT’s effectiveness;
- in Resolution
1540 (2007) the Assembly clarified that bearing in mind the time-consuming
and physically demanding nature of the CPT’s on-site visits, candidates
should have sufficient time available for this work and possess
the requisite physical capacity. Resolution 2160 (2017) added the requirement of a good mental condition;
- Resolution
2160 (2017) established that members should be able to dedicate
at least approximately 40 days a year and be available to work at
short notice.
50. At the committee hearing, Mr Mitchell stated that the fitness
and overall resilience/availability of candidates should be considered
during the selection process. He pointed out that missions are long
and intensive, often lasting two weeks, with members possibly involved
in several per year. Furthermore, the CPT meets three times per
year for week-long sessions. Candidates and their employers should
be informed of the need to adjust their professional schedules to
accommodate the demanding requirements of CPT membership. I was
made aware that CPT members may be required to take (unpaid) leave
in order to fulfil their duties. This requirement should be clearly
emphasised in the call for candidates.
3.4 Language
skills
51. Also to serve the Committee
effectively,
Resolution
2160 (2017) emphasised the importance of having an excellent command
of French or English, and at least passive knowledge of the other
in order to make an effective contribution to CPT visits and meetings.
Mr Mitchell indicated the added value of speaking other languages
for gathering reliable information during visits.
3.5 Gender
balance
52. With regard to gender balance,
Resolution 1540 (2007) called for national selection procedures to have the
public call for candidatures open equally to male and female candidates,
with a preference for candidates of the under-represented sex in
the CPT in the case of equal merit. It also called on the Sub-Committee
on Human Rights to reject lists of candidates which do not include
at least one man and one woman, except when all candidates on the
list are of the sex under-represented in the CPT (less than 40%).
In this context, I refer to my proposal in paragraph 30 above regarding
when and how a single-sex list of candidates of the sex which is
not under-represented could be accepted by the Assembly. The CPT
was for many years male-dominated,
Note but
the situation has considerably changed. As of July 2026, women represent
around 58% of members (25 out of 43 elected members). This should
be welcomed by the Assembly.
3.6 Nationality
53. In relation to the nationality
of the candidates, Article 5.1 of the Convention establishes that
among the three candidatures submitted by national delegations,
at least two shall be their nationals. Article 4.3 clarifies that
there cannot be two nationals of the same State in the CPT.
Resolution 1540 (2007) specified that in the case of dual nationality of a
candidate, effective nationality for the purpose of the Convention
shall be that of the country in which the candidate exercises his
or her political rights. These rules on nationality have led the Assembly
to declare lists including nationals from other member States inadmissible,
unless these persons are dual nationals and can be considered “effective
nationals” of the State presenting the list. This has caused particular
problems for small-sized countries wishing to put forward candidates
with the nationality of a neighbouring country or another member
State. The Assembly has already (
Resolution 1540 (2007)) proposed to the Committee of Ministers to consider
taking a decision to cease applying Article 4.3 of the Convention, which
it has described as “outdated”. I cannot but reiterate this proposal.
As Mr Mitchell stated at the committee hearing, the CPT would benefit
from having a similar rule to that introduced for the ECHR whereby
countries can put forward candidates from other Council of Europe
member States even if this results in having two members with the
same nationality. In the meantime, I propose that the draft resolution
explicitly reiterate the well-established practice whereby dual
nationals holding the nationality of the State presenting the list
and that of another member State may stand as candidates and be
elected to the CPT. This is consistent with the evolution observed
in recent years, with an increasing number of persons holding dual
nationality in member States and changes in national legislations
in this respect.
4 Conclusions
and concrete proposals
54. The importance of maintaining
the highest quality of members selected and elected to the European Committee
for the Prevention of Torture is central to the authority and legitimacy
of the CPT. The national selection procedures as well as the procedure
within the Council of Europe, have improved over the years. Nonetheless,
the time has come to review, refine and codify certain aspects of
the practice and/or the rules.
55. Concerns persist that national selection procedures are not
sufficiently harmonised or transparent. While some member States
follow good practices, such as public calls, independent panels,
consultation with different bodies, structured language assessments,
and involvement of the national delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly, others provide only minimal information. The uneven implementation
of
Resolution 2160 (2017), particularly as regards the obligation to report to
the Assembly on procedures and the composition of national selection
bodies, needs to be addressed. Consistency and fairness across member
States must be maintained. The Assembly should codify examples of
good practice from recent national selection procedures to help
States improve the fairness and transparency of their own procedures,
while acknowledging a certain latitude and without imposing a uniform
procedure for all countries.
56. The Committee of Ministers should reconsider the application
of Article 4.3 of the Convention, which prevents the nomination
of candidates who are not nationals of the State concerned and who
are nationals of another member State. This provision causes difficulties
for small-sized countries wishing to put forward candidates from
a neighbouring country or another member State.
57. The Assembly should also establish that single-sex lists can
be accepted when the candidates belong to the sex that is not under-represented
(currently, neither sex is under-represented in the CPT) if there
are “exceptional circumstances”, such as when a State has taken
all the necessary steps to ensure that the list contains candidates
of both sexes. However, this should remain the exception and the
general rule should still be that lists must include at least one
man and one woman, except when all candidates are of the sex under-represented
on the CPT.
58. I also propose that the draft resolution and the draft recommendation
should codify or clarify additional aspects of the selection and
election procedure for CPT members which need to be more clearly
regulated for all stakeholders, with a view to streamlining the
procedure at all stages. These include the following:
- codifying when a list of candidates
can be withdrawn by the national delegation, at what procedural stage,
and under what conditions;
- establishing the procedure to be followed for States Parties
to the Convention that are not member States of the Council of Europe,
and the role of the Assembly in this process (on the basis of Article
5.1 of the Convention)
- establishing the procedure to be followed for member States
that do not have a national delegation in the Assembly for a prolonged
period, when the term of office of the sitting CPT member comes
to an end;
- changing the current practice and examining lists of candidates
on the basis of written files submitted by national delegations
(CVs and letter describing the national procedure), inviting national
delegations to present them orally only when there is a genuine
issue to be discussed (on procedural or substantive grounds);
- clarifying substantive selection criteria and incompatibilities
and potential conflicts of interest of candidates;
- calling on the Committee of Ministers to follow systematically
the order of preference recommended by the Assembly and to avoid
departing from it; in this regard, the Assembly should also strengthen
its explanations on the recommended order of preference, particularly
when one or two candidates are considered to be substantially more
qualified than the third.
