Oversight bodies are recognised as important resources to prevent ill-treatment in places where individuals are deprived of their freedom. Despite this recognition and the existence of such bodies at both national and supra-national levels, little is known about how incarcerated people perceive them. This study sheds light on this issue by examining the awareness of a national and a supra-national body among incarcerated men and women in Spain (n = 1,325 individuals housed in six prisons). It estimates the proportion of individuals who are aware of the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Additionally, it analyses factors associated with awareness, including a wide range of personal and sentence-related factors, as well as those associated with life in prison. The findings reveal moderate to high levels of awareness of the Spanish NPM (57–74% across prisons) and low levels of awareness of the CPT (10–29% across prisons). Notably, awareness levels are heterogeneous, with older individuals and those with higher levels of education reporting greater awareness of both bodies. Institutionalisation also played a role, with people who had been imprisoned longer reporting greater awareness of the CPT, while repeat incarceration was associated with greater awareness of the NPM. Other factors, such as primary language and sentence status, were only relevant for NPM awareness, with those whose main language was not Spanish and individuals on remand being less likely to be aware of the NPM. These findings underscore the importance of raising awareness about prison oversight bodies intended to support people in prison, particularly among specific groups.
AebiMFTiagoMM (2019) Prisons and Prisoners in Europe 2018: Key Findings of the SPACE I Report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
2.
AizpurúaERoganM (2019) The status of prisons and juvenile detention centres in Spain: Analysing the view of the CPT. Boletín Criminológico25: 1–11.
3.
AizpuruaERoganM (2021) Rights protection in prisons: Understanding recommendations-making by prison inspection and monitoring bodies in the European Union. Punishment & Society23(4): 455–477.
4.
BaranyiGFazelSLangerfeldtSD, et al. (2022) The prevalence of comorbid serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders in prison populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health7(6): e557–e568.
5.
BehanC (2016) Citizen Convicts: Prisoners, Politics and the Vote. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
6.
BicknellCEvansM (2017) Monitoring prisons: The increasingly complex relationship between international and domestic frameworks. In: BicknellCEvansM (eds) Europe in Prisons: Assessing the Impact of European Institutions on National Prison Systems. London: Springer, 11–35.
7.
BooneMKoxM (2014) Neutrality as an element of perceived justice in prison: Consistency versus individualization. Utrecht Law Review10(4): 118–131.
8.
ButlerMMarunaS (2012) Discipline and Disparity: An Independent Report Prepared for the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Cambridge: ARCS (UK) Ltd.
9.
ButlerMMcNameeCBKellyD (2024) Exploring the factors influencing prison incentive scheme status among adult males: A prospective longitudinal study. European Journal of Criminology21(6): 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708241255513.
10.
CalavitaKValerieJ (2015) Appealing to Justice: Prisoner Grievances, Rights, and Carceral Logic. Oakland: University of California Press.
11.
Caravaca-SánchezFWolffN (2020a) Predictors of substance use among male prisoners in Spain: The role of childhood abuse and social support. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research11(2): 313–337.
12.
Caravaca SánchezFWolffN (2020b) The association between substance use and mental health symptoms among incarcerated male in Spain. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation59(3): 138–155.
13.
CarverRHandleyL (2016) Does Torture Prevention Work?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
CidJ (2005) The penitentiary system in Spain: The use of imprisonment, living conditions and rehabilitation. Punishment & Society7(2): 147–166.
15.
CliquennoisG, ed. (2022) The Evolving Protection of Prisoners’ Rights in Europe. Oxon: Routledge.
16.
CliquennoisGSnackenS (2018) European and United Nations monitoring of penal and prison policies as a source of an inverted panopticon?Crime, Law and Social Change70(1): 1–18.
17.
CPT (2017) Report to the Spanish Government on the visit to Spain carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 27 September to 10 October 2016. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16809a5597
18.
CPT (2021) Report to the Spanish Government on the visit to Spain carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 14 to 28. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680a47a76#:~:text=The%20CPT%20sets%20out%20a,all%20injuries%2C%20immediate%20and%20systematic
19.
DaemsT (2017) Slaves and statues: Torture prevention in contemporary Europe. British Journal of Criminology57(3): 627–643.
20.
DaemsTRobertL (2017) Europe in Prisons: Assessing the Impact of European Institutions on National Prison Systems. London: Springer.
21.
DâmboeanuCPricopieVThiemannA (2021) The path to human rights in Romania: Emergent voice(s) of legal mobilization in prisons. European Journal of Criminology18(1): 120–139.
22.
DazaPNovyDMStanleyMA, et al. (2002) The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21: Spanish translation and validation with a Hispanic sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment24(3): 195–205.
DeitchM (2012) The need for independent prison oversight in a post-PLRA world. Federal Sentencing Reporter24(4): 236–244.
25.
Facer-IrwinEBlackwoodNJBirdA, et al. (2019) PTSD in prison settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comorbid mental disorders and problematic behaviours. PLoS One14(9): e0222407.
26.
FavrilLvan GinnekenEFJC (2024) Individual and environmental contributors to psychological distress during imprisonment. European Journal of Criminology21(3): 350–369.
27.
FazelSHayesAJBartellasK, et al. (2016) Mental health of prisoners: Prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. The Lancet Psychiatry3(9): 871–881.
28.
FernandezL (2005) Optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as adopted in 2002 by the UN general assembly 57/1999: Implications for South Africa. Law, Democracy & Development9(1): 113–136.
29.
FovetTPlanckeLAmarieiA, et al. (2020) Mental disorders on admission to jail: A study of prevalence and a comparison with a community sample in the north of France. European Psychiatry63(1): e43.
30.
GonçalvesLCEndrassJRosseggerA, et al. (2021) Assessing prison adjustment among young adult offenders: Changes, correlates, and outcomes. European Journal of Criminology18(3): 366–385.
31.
HardwickNMurrayR (2019) Regularity of OPCAT visits by NPMs in Europe. Australian Journal of Human Rights25(1): 66–90.
32.
Lappi-SeppäläTKoskenniemiL (2018) National and regional instruments in securing the rule of law and human rights in the Nordic prisons. Crime, Law and Social Change135(70): 135–159.
33.
LieblingA (2004) Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality, and Prison Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
LinosKPegramT (2017) What works in human rights institutions?American Journal of International Law111(3): 628–688.
35.
LovibondPFLovibondSH (1995) The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy33(3): 335–343.
36.
McGregorL (2023) Detention and Its Alternatives under International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MorgensternCHammerschickWRoganM, eds. (2023) European Perspectives on Pre-Trial Detention: A Means of Last Resort?. Oxon: Routledge.
39.
MurrayRSteinerteEEvansM, et al. (2011) The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
NaylorB (2023) Protecting the rights of children and young people in detention: Evaluating credibility and effectiveness of human rights monitoring bodies. Law and Social Inquiry1–20.
41.
O’ConnellCAizpuruaERoganM (2021) The European committee for the prevention of torture and the gendered experience of imprisonment. Crime, Law, and Social Change75: 445–468.
42.
O’ConnellCRoganM (2023) Monitoring prisons in Europe: Understanding perspectives of people in prison and prison staff. Law & Social Inquiry48(1): 205–235.
43.
PadfieldN (2018) Monitoring prisons in England and Wales: Who ensures the fair treatment of prisoners?Crime, Law and Social Change70: 57–76.
44.
PiacentiniLKatzE (2017) Carceral framing of human rights in Russian prisons. Punishment & Society19(2): 221–239.
45.
PierceN (2014) Implementing human rights in closed environments: The OPCAT framework and the New Zealand experience. Law Context: A Socio-Legal Journal31: 154–208.
46.
Ruiz JiménezMSaiz GaldósJMontero ArredondoM, et al. (2017) Adaptation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in people with severe mental disorders. Revista de aa Asociación Española de Neuropsiquiatría37(132): 415–437.
47.
SechidouKDaemsT (2022) Monitoring prisons: A study of the ongoing dialogue between the European committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and Belgium. In: HerreraCHaeckY (eds) Human Rights Behind Bars: Tracing Vulnerability in Prison Populations across Continents from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. Vol. 103London: Springer Nature, pp.267–291.
SteinerteE (2013) The changing nature of the relationship between the United Nations subcommittee on prevention of torture and national preventive mechanisms: In search for equilibrium. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights31(2): 132–158.
52.
SteinerteE (2014) The jewel in the crown and its three guardians: Independence of national preventive mechanisms under the optional protocol to the UN torture convention. Human Rights Law Review14(1): 1–29.
53.
SteinerteEMurrayR (2009) Same but different? National human rights commissions and ombudsman institutions as national preventive mechanisms under the optional protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights25: 54–72.
54.
SvendsenVGStavsethMRSkardhamarT, et al. (2023) Psychiatric morbidity among women in Norwegian prisons, 2010–2019: A register-based study. BMC Psychiatry23: 390.
55.
UgelvikT (2014) The incarceration of foreigners in European prisons. In: PickeringSHamJ (eds) The Routledge Handbook on Crime and International Migration. Oxon: Routledge, 107–120.
56.
VaggJ (1994) Prison Systems: A Comparative Study of Accountability in England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
57.
Van BuurenS (2018) Flexible Imputation of Missing Data (2nd edn). London: CRC Press.
58.
van der ValkS (2022) Prison law: Prisoner experiences of accountability mechanisms in Ireland. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Trinity College, Dublin.
59.
van der ValkSAizpuruaERoganM (2023) Towards a typology of prisoners’ awareness of and familiarity with prison inspection and monitoring bodies. European Journal of Criminology20(1): 228–250.
60.
van der ValkSRoganM (2021) Experiencing human rights protections in prisons: The case of prison monitoring in Ireland. European Journal of Criminology18(1): 101–119.
61.
van GinnekenEPalmenABosmaA, et al. (2019) Bearing the weight of imprisonment: The relationship between prison climate and well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior46(10): 1385–1404.
62.
WarrenJIHurtSLoperAB, et al. (2004) Exploring prison adjustment among female inmates: Issues of measurement and prediction. Criminal Justice and Behavior31: 624–645.
63.
WolffNCaravaca SánchezFAizpuruaE (2020) Childhood adversity classes of incarcerated men and their association with prison-based psychological distress and substance use. Children and Youth Services Review109: 104732.
ZimetGDDahlemNWZimetSG, et al. (2010) The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment52(1): 30–41.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
