Vienna gathering hears calls for stronger safeguards, independent monitoring and an end to impunity
The OSCE’s third Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting of 2026 opened in Vienna with a stark message: the legal ban on torture is absolute, but implementation remains uneven across the region. Officials, experts and civil society representatives called for stronger safeguards in police custody, independent monitoring of detention facilities, non-coercive interviewing methods and real accountability for abuses committed in peacetime, during protests and in armed conflict.
The prohibition of torture is one of the clearest rules in international law. Yet at the OSCE’s Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting III, held under the Swiss OSCE Chairpersonship with support from ODIHR, speakers warned that this principle is still too often violated in practice.
The meeting, focused on “Preventing Torture and Ill-Treatment: Strengthening Co-operation and Implementation,” brought together participating States, international organisations, national human rights institutions, monitoring bodies, legal and medical experts, and civil society groups. The discussions centred on how existing commitments can be turned into practical protection for people in detention, especially during the first hours after arrest.
Ambassador Rafael Nägeli, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the OSCE and Chairperson of the OSCE Permanent Council, opened the meeting by linking torture prevention to the wider priorities of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. He said torture “can never be justified under any circumstances” and warned that impunity remains a breeding ground for further abuse.
ODIHR Director Maria Telalian also stressed that the issue is not only legal, but deeply institutional. Access to a lawyer, prompt medical examination, notification of relatives, accurate custody records and judicial oversight, she said, are not technical details but among the most effective safeguards against abuse.
From law to implementation
The OSCE Ministerial Council’s Decision No. 7/20 on the prevention and eradication of torture, adopted in Tirana in 2020, formed a central reference point throughout the meeting. That decision reaffirmed the absolute prohibition of torture and called for effective safeguards, accountability, victim-centred remedies and prevention mechanisms across the OSCE region.
But several speakers argued that the greatest failure is no longer the absence of standards. It is the gap between standards and implementation.
Barbara Bernath, a member of the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, noted that the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture has helped shift the global approach from reaction to prevention. She underlined the importance of National Preventive Mechanisms and unannounced visits to places where people are deprived of liberty, including prisons, police stations, psychiatric institutions, migrant centres and social care homes.
At the same time, she warned that torture risks remain visible across the OSCE area: in armed conflicts and occupation, in excessive force during protests, in overcrowded prisons, in migration procedures and during forced returns. No state, she said, is immune from the risk of torture.
The first hours after arrest
The first working session focused on safeguards and accountability in criminal justice procedures. Experts repeatedly stressed that the period immediately after apprehension is one of the most dangerous moments for a detainee.
Marie Lequin of the Association for the Prevention of Torture said torture often occurs when people are cut off from the outside world and fully dependent on officials detaining them. Safeguards, she argued, are the “practical architecture” of torture prevention.
These safeguards include access to a lawyer during questioning, independent medical examination, the right to inform a relative, information on rights in a language the person understands, judicial oversight, independent complaint mechanisms, accurate custody records and audiovisual recording of interviews.
Lequin also warned that safeguards must be adapted for people at heightened risk, including children, persons with disabilities, foreign nationals, LGBTIQ+ persons and people facing communication barriers. Rights that exist on paper, she said, can fail in practice when lawyers are unavailable, legal aid is weak, or detainees do not understand what they are waiving.
Participants also discussed so-called “grey zones” before formal detention is registered. Tatiana Chernobyl, a human rights lawyer from Kazakhstan, highlighted the risk created when a person is factually deprived of liberty but not yet formally recognised as a suspect. She argued that the moment of actual apprehension must be recorded promptly and reliably, including during transfer to a police station.
Moving away from confession-driven justice
A major theme of the day was the danger of criminal justice systems that rely too heavily on confessions. Experts warned that when police, prosecutors or judges expect confessions, pressure on detainees can increase and coercive methods become more likely.
Mark Fallon, a former United States federal law enforcement official and member of the steering committee for the Méndez Principles on Effective Interviewing, said torture is not only unlawful but strategically counterproductive. Drawing on his experience after 11 September 2001, he argued that coercive interrogation produced bad information, wrongful assumptions and long-term damage to public trust and security.
The Méndez Principles, adopted in 2021, promote rapport-based, non-coercive interviewing grounded in science, law and ethics. Fallon called for a ban on deceptive interrogation practices, mandatory video recording from start to finish, and a shift to evidence-based interviewing methods.
Speakers from Dignity and other organisations echoed this point, warning that criminal justice systems must stop rewarding tainted confessions. Courts, prosecutors and defence lawyers need clear procedures to exclude evidence obtained through torture or ill-treatment.
War, protests and political repression
While the meeting focused on practical safeguards, many interventions from the floor turned to situations of armed conflict, political repression and protest-related violence.
Ukraine and several civil society organisations accused Russia of systematically using torture and ill-treatment against Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians, including in occupied territories and through criminal proceedings described as politically motivated. Ukrainian speakers called for stronger international accountability mechanisms, including renewed use of OSCE tools to document abuses.
Other participants raised concerns about Belarus, Georgia, Serbia, Uzbekistan, Karakalpakstan, Chechnya and other contexts where detainees, protesters, political opponents or minority groups were said to face torture, ill-treatment, intimidation or ineffective investigations.
Survivor testimony also played a powerful role. Mansoor Adayfi, who said he was detained at a CIA black site and later held at Guantánamo Bay for years without charge or trial, argued that torture must be understood not only as individual abuse, but as policy when it is authorised, funded, documented and left unpunished.
Oversight, technology and accountability
The meeting also considered the role of technology in preventing abuse. Audiovisual recording of interviews, electronic custody records and body-worn cameras were presented as tools that can strengthen transparency. But speakers warned that technology cannot replace human safeguards.
For body cameras or electronic records to be meaningful, there must be clear rules on when they are used, how recordings are stored, who can access them, and how failures are investigated. Without independent oversight, technology may create the appearance of accountability without ensuring it.
National Preventive Mechanisms, ombuds institutions, civil society monitors, medical professionals and defence lawyers were all identified as essential actors in detecting abuse and preventing closed institutions from becoming spaces of secrecy.
The discussion also underlined that torture prevention depends on political will. Training police and detention staff is important, but experts said it must be backed by leadership, institutional culture and consequences for violations.
A test of the rule of law
The first day of the OSCE meeting showed a broad consensus on one point: torture prevention requires more than legal prohibition. It requires safeguards that begin at the first moment of detention, independent monitoring, professional interviewing, exclusion of tainted evidence, protection of victims and credible investigations when state agents are accused.
For the OSCE region, the issue is also a test of democratic resilience. Torture and ill-treatment do not only harm individual victims. They corrode trust in police, courts, governments and international commitments.
As ODIHR’s Director told participants, preventing torture is a measure of commitment to human dignity, justice and the rule of law. The challenge now is whether participating States can turn that commitment into practice.
For more reporting on human rights and democratic accountability in Europe, visit The European Times human rights section.
