Part II Preventing torture: NHRIs in action | Section IV Cross-cutting actions 2.2. Consultation process regarding possible NPM Under the Optional Protocol, NPMs have a mandate to carry out regular preventive visits to all places where persons are deprived of their liberty. They are also required to make recommendations to the authorities on the prevention of torture and to submit observations on relevant existing or draft legislation. In order for them to perform this mandate, States parties must guarantee NPMs functional independence, as well as the independence of their members. They must also make available the necessary resources for the effective functioning of the NPM. They must ensure that NPM members have the required capabilities and professional knowledge to perform the role. In addition, NPMs must be granted certain powers regarding access to places of detention, access to information and access to persons deprived of their liberty. The Optional Protocol does not prescribe any particular organizational form for NPMs. States are able to decide the most suitable option, taking into account their national, social, political and economical context. It is incumbent on States to thoroughly analyse and assess the various options available to them. This analysis should be undertaken in an open and transparent manner. In its first annual report, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture developed “preliminary guidelines for the ongoing development of national preventive mechanisms” which recommended that these bodies should be established by a public, inclusive and transparent process. NHRIs should be part of this consultation process, together with other national actors, such as relevant Government officials, existing monitoring bodies, human rights NGOs, trade unions, professional organizations and Members of Parliament. Ideally, the consultation process should start with an inventory of existing visiting bodies within the country, including a detailed analysis of their ability to meet the Optional Protocol’s requirements. This inventory can provide a useful starting point for developing recommendations on possible options for the NPM. Based on this analysis, and on the consultation process, States can then decide their preferred model for the NPM. This could include: • the establishment of an entirely new Optional Protocol-based mechanism • the designation of an existing body • the designation of several mechanisms, either existing bodies, new bodies or a combination of both. In Paraguay, following the State’s ratification of the Optional Protocol, a three-day national seminar was held that brought together hundreds of representatives from the governmental and non-governmental sectors. At the end of the forum, a 13-member NPM drafting committee was established by consensus, comprising government and civil society representatives. After six months of consultations, a draft law to create the National Commission to Prevent Torture was presented to the Congress. In its second annual report, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture “noted with appreciation that the process of development of the draft law establishing the NPM has been characterized by openness, transparency and inclusivity” (CAT/C/42/2, para. 38). In May 2008, the Attorney General’s Office of Australia invited stakeholders to share their views on whether Australia should accede to the Optional Protocol. During the consultation process (known as the National Interest Analysis), several institutions, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, presented their positions. These written submissions will serve as a basis for further discussions on the most appropriate NPM option in Australia. Chapter 10: NHRIs and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture | 99