National Prevention Mechanism (NPM)
The Fundamental Rights section of the European Commission’s reports on Ukraine’s progress towards EU membership emphasizes that, despite improvements in the legal framework and some success in investigating torture cases, the issue of ill-treatment remains significant, particularly within the penitentiary system and in detention centers. The European Commission emphasized the importance of enhancing torture prevention, especially by reforms and boosting the effectiveness of the National Prevention Mechanism, ensuring it aligns with international standards and plays a key role in Ukraine’s European integration process.
Text as of March 2026
Based on research and human rights practices, we can identify the following issues in how NPM functions in Ukraine:
The National Prevention Mechanism (NPM) has not yet undergone a review through close consultation with specialized public organizations, although efforts have been made to hold public consultations on this issue.
The Office of the Human Rights Commissioner needs to enhance collaboration with specialized public organizations involved in preventing torture and protecting victims. The existing level of consultations is clearly insufficient.
In practice, the NPM model “Ombudsman+” reverts to a basic “Ombudsman” when civil society plays a secondary role, with control over all aspects of work centralized in the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner. There is a significant risk that the Mechanism will become nothing more than formal checks, replacing actual quality monitoring.
The Human Rights Commissioner in Ukraine currently lacks sufficient leverage to influence violations identified by the National Prevention Mechanism. Ombudsman’s response acts do not have mandatory power to address human rights violations found during visits, so they are rarely implemented.
Lack of comprehensive and coordinated planning for monitoring visits within the activities of the National Prevention Mechanism leads to:
- the absence of clear and pre-approved visit plans;
- improper calculation of financial and human resources;
- problems with logistics and geographical coverage;
- ineffective selection of detention facilities for visits;
- uncertainty concerning the composition of monitoring groups and required professionals;
- weak coordination with other structural units of the Secretariat and regional offices, which significantly reduces the NPM’s ability to effectively prevent torture and ill-treatment;
- The number of monitoring visits is inadequate and does not align with the current count of detention facilities in Ukraine. This prevents consistent monitoring of detention facilities, timely detection of human rights violations, and effective prevention of torture and ill-treatment.
The potential risk of substituting the NMP’s preventive role with quasi-investigative activities. The NMP should avoid investigating individual complaints or specific crimes. Instead, its main role is to focus on prevention, alert the appropriate authorities about any violations it finds, and support their investigation efforts without overlapping their responsibilities. It is important to prevent the reintroduction of individual complaint reviews within NPM activities.
NPM’s independence is compromised due to institutional reliance on the Verkhovna Rada’s Human Rights Commissioner, unclear appointment processes, unstable funding, and weak safeguards against political or managerial interference. These vulnerabilities pose a risk to NPM’s effectiveness if there is a change in the Ombudsman or a disruption to institutional continuity. In 2022, the NPM nearly ceased operations for a long period after the change in the Human Rights Commissioner.
No additional solutions for NPM functioning under martial law in areas near hostilities were developed, despite an increased need to monitor detention facilities in these areas.
What Ukraine needs to do during its accession to the EU to improve the situation:
1) The mandate and response to identified violations
This requires the following steps:
- Legislatively enhance and reinforce the authority of the Ombudsman as an entity fulfilling the functions of the NPM. Specifically, grant the authority to adopt mandatory response measures to eliminate severe and systemic human rights violations within the NPM framework. This includes setting the terms for their implementation, establishing accountability for failure to act, and the right to seek judicial review.
- Allocate adequate staff and financial resources to the NPM to ensure effective operation, including support for civil society representatives’ participation, covering their expenses, providing professional training, and enhancing their qualifications.
- Enhance oversight of the provision of free access across all detention facilities, including to persons detained there and to their documentation and personal files.
- Implement a robust system that requires authorities to respond to identified violations and oversee the implementation of NPM recommendations to eliminate them and restore infringed rights.
2) Engagement with international entities and civil society
This requires the following steps:
- Clearly outline the roles, rights, and responsibilities of civil society representatives within the NPM system, and establish stable cooperation procedures to minimize the mechanism’s reliance on replacing the Commissioner.
- Establish systematic collaboration between the Commissioner and international bodies involved in torture prevention, such as the UN Committee Against Torture and the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture. This includes participating in the preparation of alternative reports and exchanging experiences with NPMs from other countries.
- Enhance the role of consultative and advisory bodies under the Commissioner by involving human rights activists, experts, scientists, and representatives from organizations working with vulnerable groups such as children, persons with mental disorders, LGBTQ+ individuals, IDPs, and veterans with PTSD. It is important to publish draft documents created through such cooperation.
- Strengthen collaboration with civil society to identify systemic human rights violations, including through joint initiatives and expert discussions.
3) Increased transparency and accountability
This requires the following steps:
- Ensure the publication of annual reports on Ukraine’s efforts to prevent torture and other ill-treatment, inhumane, and degrading treatment and punishment. These reports should include details on the NPM’s activities, financial reports on funds received and utilized, and recommendations to the authorities for addressing identified problems.
- Maintain ongoing independent evaluations of the NPM activities. Engage in the assessment of experts from international human rights institutions and organizations, and regularly publish expert reports.
- Actively use the official website and social media platforms to share updates on monitoring visit results and any identified violations.
- Publish annual financial reports concerning the NPM’s activities, including the use of technical assistance funds.
- Make sure that public communication covers not only identified violations but also the authorities’ follow-up actions to implement recommendations and restore violated rights, highlighting the real impact of the NPM.
4) Increasing the capacity and activity planning
This requires the following steps:
- Create a five-year strategic NPM development plan that outlines activity priorities, necessary resources, clear efficiency metrics, implementation timelines, and funding from the state budget.
- Ensure an inclusive approach to developing a strategic plan by involving civil society, human rights organizations, scientists, international experts, and donors, while also defining their roles in the implementation process.
- This strategic plan should be adaptable, allowing for review and adjustments as necessary.
- Implementing the specified recommendations should enhance NPM’s efficiency and expand its capacity to protect human rights in detention facilities, in line with international standards.
5) NPM’s activities during martial law
This requires the following steps:
- Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 87–88 of the Geneva Convention IV require Ukraine to maintain proper oversight even during martial law.
- NPM requires evaluating risks and challenges related to activities during martial law, especially in areas of hostilities or near them, where its operations are limited. Possible steps to improve NPM efficiency in these territories need to be identified, as they still contain detention facilities, including penitentiary system institutions, social institutions, and AFU locations.
- NPM should have complete access to new detention facilities within the AFU and all detention sites for prisoners of war, and make regular visits there.
For a more detailed overview of the EU and Ukraine’s acquis and case law related to NPM, along with justifications for our recommendations, please see the research section on this page. Specifically, see the document available only in Ukrainian: National Prevention Mechanism (NPM) in the context of European Integration. If you have any feedback or comments about this material, please send them to: hrmap@ccl.org.ua.
Published materials may be used provided that a mandatory link to the original source is included. © 2026 Center For Civil Liberties.
Experts
Human Rights Association FREERIGHTS