Monitoring the Implementation Gap: A Comparative Perspective

  • Jonas Visschers
  • Tom Daems
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology book series (PSIPP)


The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2015, has become a major player on the European human rights scene. However, in recent years, the CPT has repeatedly complained about a lack of follow-up of its recommendations. In its 24th general report (2013–2014), for example, the CPT observed that ‘…it is a matter of concern to the Committee that, in respect of several states parties, it has been obliged to repeat recommendations made in the context of earlier visits, having found no significant improvement or, in some cases, even a worsening of the situation. In the same vein, the responses of some states parties limit themselves to merely invoking the domestic legislative framework, whereas the CPT’s recommendations in question pointed to the need for practical improvements, policy changes or even the amendment of legislation’ (p. 6). This (and similar) complaints and worries by the CPT may be an indication that the dialogue between the CPT and (some of) the member states is somehow being distorted. In this chapter, we analyse from a comparative perspective how interactions between the CPT and state authorities take place in practice.


CPT Comparative perspective Living conditions in prisons 


  1. Anagnostou, D., ed. 2013. The European Court of Human Rights. Implementing Strasbourg’s Judgments on Domestic Policy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cid, J. 2005. The Penitentiary System in Spain: The Use of Imprisonment, Living Conditions and Rehabilitation. Punishment & Society 7: 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daems, T. 2017. Slaves and Statues: Torture Prevention in Contemporary Europe. British Journal of Criminology 57 (3): 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De la Cuesta, J.L., and I. Blanco. 2001. Spain. In Imprisonment Today And tomorrow: International Perspectives on Prisoners’ Rights and Prison Conditions, ed. D. van Zyl Smit and F. Dünkel, 2nd ed. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  5. Holda, Z. 1995. The Law of Corrections in Poland. In Legal Reform in Post-Communist Europe: The View from Within, ed. S. Frankowski and P.B. Stephan. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1999. Poland. In Prison Labour: Salvation or Slavery? International Perspectives, ed. D. van Zyl Smit and F. Dünkel. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Holda, Z., and A. Rzeplinski. 1991. The Polish Prison System in Mid-course: Prisoners’ Rights and Prison Conditions in Poland on the Verge of Becoming Civilized. In Imprisonment Today and Tomorrow: International Perspectives on Prisoners’ Rights and Prison Conditions, ed. D. van Zyl Smit and F. Dünkel. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Makin, A. 2013. Popular Punitivism and Cultural Mediation: The Case of Spain. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 41: 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Morgan, R. 1999. Moderate Psychological Pressure: The Scandinavian Way? Kritisk Juss 26: 201–204.Google Scholar
  10. Platek, M. 2013. Poland: The Political Legacy and Penal Practice. In Punishment in Europe: A Critical Anatomy of Penal Systems, ed. V. Ruggiero and M. Ryan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Pratt, J. 2008. Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess: Part 1: The Nature and Roots of Scandinavian Exceptionalism. British Journal of Criminology 48: 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pratt, J., and A. Eriksson. 2011. ‘Mr. Larsson Is Walking Out Again’. The Origins and Development of Scandinavian Prison Systems. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 44: 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, P.S. 2012. A Critical Look at Scandinavian Exceptionalism: Welfare State Theories, Penal Populism and Prison Conditions in Denmark and Scandinavia. In Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice, ed. T. Ugelvik and J. Dullum. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas Visschers
    • 1
  • Tom Daems
    • 1
  1. 1.Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC), KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations