Since 1977 the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) has been working to stop torture by persuading governments to open places of detention to oversight monitoring bodies. Our assertion is that this deters abuses and enables the visiting experts to make well-informed recommendations for the reform of detention conditions and practices, which will reduce the risk of torture and other ill treatment.

A successful outcome of this advocacy was the establishment of, first, a regional body, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), and then finally a global system working to prevent torture, when the United Nations approved in 2002 the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). OPCAT has created a system of international and national monitoring bodies that have access to all places where persons are deprived of their liberty. By the end of 2015 half of the world's states had agreed to be part of this novel preventive system.

However, back in 2010 an important donor asked us: ‘How do you measure the effectiveness of these monitoring mechanisms?’ Although we could offer evidence of the impact of our work, we had limited information on the effectiveness of monitoring mechanisms. This one question triggered us to reflect further on the lack of reliable data and evidence of the results of torture prevention work as a whole. Although it would bring into question all our work, we decided that it was time to address the bigger issue of ‘Does torture prevention work?’

Making available well-researched evidence on the effectiveness of torture prevention measures was, we thought, a timely contribution in a period of growing concern with the global risks of torture, alongside an increased commitment to prevent it.

For the study to be credible it could not be done by the APT. It needed to be done independently, by academic researchers with relevant experience.