Part II Preventing torture: NHRIs in action | Section IV Cross-cutting actions 3.2.4. Annual report NPMs are required to publish an annual report of their activities. This should preferably be a separate annual report or, at the least, a separate chapter in the annual report of the NHRI. In the Czech Republic, the Ombudsman (Public Defender of Rights) has been designated as NPM following a revision of the mandate, the provision of additional financial resources and the establishment of a new unit, comprising six staff, within the Office. In Sweden, the two bodies designated as NPMs objected to their designation through submissions to Parliament. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen have the mandate to carry out unannounced visits and initiate investigations but consider that, as the institution is complaintsdriven and mostly reactive in character, its ability to carry out the preventive work required by the Optional Protocol is limited. The Chancellor of Justice has wide supervisory powers but is a reactive institution, composed of lawyers, which had not been given sufficient additional resources to perform this additional task. During its visit to Sweden in March 2008, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture held discussions with both NPMs. In its report, the Subcommittee considered that there was a need for a “profound re-examination” of the designation and stated that “visiting methodology should reflect a preventive approach, which although complementary, differs substantially from their current, complaint-driven activities. The Swedish authorities should also ensure that these bodies receive the necessary additional resources and training to function as NPMs” (CAT/OP/SWE/1, para. 38). The Swedish Government has replied that budgetary issues will be dealt with in the framework of the annual budgetary processes by the Parliament and Government (CAT/OP/SWE/1/Add.1, para. 3). Watch Go to the Preventing Torture CD-Rom to watch two examples of NHRIs – in the Maldives and New Zealand – that are acting as national preventive mechanisms. Click on ‘Feature materials’ and then select ‘Item 17 – NHRIs: Case studies of two national preventive mechanisms’. 3.3. Interaction between designated NPM and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture The Optional Protocol provides for direct contact between the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and NPMs. When designated as the NPM, NHRIs can interact with the Subcommittee in several ways. • NPMs and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture can have direct contact (articles 20 (f), 11 (b)(ii), 12 (c)) NPMs can provide information to the Subcommittee on their mandate and functioning, as well as on their priority areas for the prevention of torture. They should also send their annual reports to the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and NPMs can have direct contact in the form of meetings, which can be held on a confidential basis if necessary. States parties to the Optional Protocol have an obligation to facilitate and encourage direct contact between their NPMs and the Subcommittee. In the case of a country visit by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, NPMs should establish contact with the Subcommittee at an early stage, provide concrete information regarding Chapter 10: NHRIs and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture | 103