CAT/C/NLD/CO/7 Training 20. While noting the extensive training provided to public officials, including on the treatment of prisoners, use of force and identification and referral of vulnerable persons among asylum seekers, the Committee regrets the absence of information on the instructions provided for law enforcement personnel at all levels, the overall size of the target group, the percentage of those trained and the frequency of those training sessions. It also notes the lack of information on the training provided to public officials on the provisions of the Convention in Sint Maarten (art. 10). 21. The State party should: (a) Ensure that education, information and instructions regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of medical personnel and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment; (b) Ensure that both the Convention and other related international instruments are included in training, such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules); (c) Develop and investigation techniques; implement training programmes on non-coercive (d) Develop and implement specific methodologies to assess the effectiveness and impact of training and educational programmes provided to relevant public officials on the provisions of the Convention in terms of reducing the number of cases of torture and ill-treatment. National Agency for the Prevention of Torture 22. While noting that the Law Enforcement Council and other relevant inspectorates have their own mandates to visit detention facilities in the Caribbean parts of the Netherlands, the Committee remains concerned that the Optional Protocol to the Convention remains applicable only to the European part of the State party and the national preventive mechanism does not have a mandate to conduct regular and routine preventive activities outside the European Netherlands. In that regard, it notes the intention expressed by the delegation to have the Optional Protocol applicable in Curaçao as soon as possible. In addition, the Committee is concerned about consistent reports on the lack of both resources and independence of the national preventive mechanism. It is also concerned about information that the mechanism does not effectively monitor detention facilities leased to foreign countries and military detention facilities, including those managed overseas (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13 and 16). 23. The State party should take all necessary measures to withdraw its declaration on the exclusive territorial application of the Optional Protocol to the European Netherlands and ensure the applicability thereof throughout the State party, including in the Caribbean Netherlands. Recalling the Committee’s previous recommendations (CAT/C/NLD/CO/5-6, para. 28), it should ensure the complete financial and operational independence of the national preventive mechanism, both factual and perceived, including by ensuring it has a separate specifically earmarked budget, and consider reviewing the current formation of the mechanism with a view to bringing it fully in line with the guidelines on national preventive mechanisms of the Subcommittee on Prevention on Torture and the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles). It should also ensure that all aspects of detention facilities leased to foreign countries and military detention facilities, including those managed overseas, are effectively monitored. 6