A/71/206 administration, to prevent and identify incidents of violence and other child rights violations; to assess and recommend improvements to conditions of detention and the safeguarding of children’s rights; and to review individual complaints. 108. In this process, three different approaches have been followed. In countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Chile, judiciary authorities have a special oversight responsibility over places where children are deprived of liberty as part of their role in executing judicial sentences and in safeguarding children’s rights. 109. In other cases, a non-jurisdictional mechanism has been put in place. In Chile, inter-institutional commissions of supervision have been established throughout the country under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice. With the participation of representatives from the judiciary, academia and civil society, as well as UNICEF, the commissions operate by consensus and their recommendations are made public and available online. In Colombia, the National Congress established a commission for the verification of human rights within the juvenile justice system composed of representatives from the Ministries of Justice and Law and of Education, the Colombian Family Welfare Institute and the National Planning Department. In both countries, monitoring tasks include interviews with children. 110. In Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, pursuant to the Optional Protoco l to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, important independent bodies have been set up as national mechanisms for the prevention of torture, at times under the auspices of the national independent human rights institution (in the case of Uruguay). These mechanisms, which are accorded full access to centres of detention, including those where children are placed, conduct periodic and unannounced visits, hold private interviews with children deprived of liberty and issue public reports and recommendations addressed to the authorities. 111. Although they differ in nature, these various institutions are indispensable and mutually supportive in monitoring the premises and conditions of detention, preventing and responding to any risk of violence or other human rights violations and meeting with children and being informed by their views and concerns. These mechanisms are designed to complement and support the national child protection system, as well as other actors whose intervention may be needed for the recovery and reintegration of any child victim of violence. C. Key recommendations 112. The conference highlighted significant recommendations, both on deprivation of liberty as a measure of last resort and on national monitoring mechanisms for places of detention. 113. As a measure of last resort, deprivation of liberty should never be used as a response to a non-existent or weak national child protection system. When in exceptional circumstances children are lawfully deprived of liberty, their right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of their liberty before a court and to a prompt decision thereon should be respected. The length of their placement must be clearly determined at the time of the decision, and non-custodial alternatives should be strengthened at all stages of the proceedings, including through restorative justice approaches. Moreover, restriction of a child’s right to liberty can never be 16-12906 21/23