A/HRC/28/30 prosecution and sanctions, aimed at convincing potential torturers that the “costs” are greater than the possible “benefits”. He underscored the fact that these approaches were applicable across the spectrum of the prevention of human rights violations. He also outlined the tangible aspects of direct prevention, such as assessing root causes rather than focusing on symptoms, identifying and addressing risk factors at different levels, in terms of situations (for example, cases of deprivation of liberty) and persons at risk and their vulnerabilities, environmental factors, gaps in protection, and the institutional culture that created incentives and/or failure to deter. Lastly, prevention required a holistic, multidisciplinary approach, involving multiple actors on many fronts. It also required constructive ongoing dialogue with authorities on ways and means to address risk factors. 23. The moderator asked the panellist to elaborate on strategies that were effective in the prevention of torture, how they could be applied in other areas and the role that civil society could play in this process. The panellist underscored the importance of using holistic strategies that included four complementary elements: a strong legal and policy framework that prohibited and prevented torture (ratification of core human rights treaties, legislation, but also regulations); implementation of the said legal framework through prosecution and sentencing, as well as training, capacity-building and procedural safeguards, such as registers in places of detention and video recordings of interrogations; independent oversight, including regular monitoring of places of detention by independent bodies, in particular by national preventive mechanisms under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture; and communication and contributions to public debates, given the need for strong public opposition to torture. With regard to the third element, the panellist pointed out that, where national preventive mechanisms were compliant with the Optional Protocol, had a strong legal basis and adequate human and financial resources, and fully implemented their preventive mandate, they could contribute effectively to reducing the risk of torture in places of detention. When independent members of civil society had full access to all areas, they could provide officials with informed recommendations based on their analysis. Again, all of these strategies could be applied across the spectrum of the prevention of human rights violations. 24. After stating how the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been instrumental in clarifying the duty to prevent violations of economic, social and cultural rights, the moderator invited the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, Renato Zerbini Ribeiro Leão, to share the Committee’s observations in this regard. He explained that the prevention work of the Committee was carried out at all stages, including during the preparation of lists of issues, concluding observations, general comments and letters. In the lists of issues addressed by the Committee, States are requested to provide information on measures taken to prevent violations, such as ensuring access to education, the work of civil society and access to economic, social and cultural rights in general. The Committee requested States to make reference to specific actions pursuant to the International Covenant on Social, Cultural and Economic Rights. Concluding observations included specific recommendations for States to take preventing measures in accordance with the Covenant and in the light of the general comments issued by the Committee. Lastly, the Committee could also address letters to States parties on ways in which they should comply with the Covenant, for example by incorporating the Covenant into domestic laws and raising awareness of its provisions. For example, in a letter dated 16 May 2012, the Committee expressed its concern surrounding austerity measures taken by States parties and increasing inequality. It emphasized that States should at all times avoid making decisions that result in the denial or infringement of rights. The panellist also highlighted the Committee’s wish that the provisions of the Covenant be incorporated into State legislation, that States harmonize their legislation with the Covenant, promote the Covenant and use it in legal proceedings. He reminded States that ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Covenant was also an important preventive action. 8