CAT/OP/ARM/1 capabilities and professional knowledge, including medical, psychological and other related expertise. 37. The SPT reminds the State Party that the provision of adequate financial and human resources constitutes a legal obligation under Article 18, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol and wishes to be informed, as a matter of priority, about the steps taken to provide the NPM with adequate financial and human resources to allow for its complete financial and operational autonomy. 38. Cooperation. The meetings of the SPT with the relevant Government authorities have also revealed little cooperation and interaction with the HR Defender in its function as NPM. Some authorities referred to cooperation with the institution, but this seems to have been more often with the HRDO in its mandate regarding specific complaints, not in its capacity as NPM. This highlights a clear lack of visibility of the NPM and may even point at a lack of understanding of the exact role of the NPM and the nature of its work. This lack of visibility may have a detrimental effect on the NPM’s efficiency. 39. Furthermore, the SPT has received feedback that the State authorities do not proactively discuss NPM reports, and notes with concern that the NPM estimates that only 10 per cent of its general recommendations have been followed up by authorities. 40. The SPT wishes to emphasize the obligations stemming from the OPCAT and recommends that the NPM be given a prominent role, with optimal institutional and public visibility. It recommends that the State party ensure a meaningful dialogue with the NPM on possible implementation measures, in line with article 22 of the OPCAT. In this regard, a focal point could be identified in each of, or for all, the relevant ministries to follow up on the implementation of the NPM recommendations and to engage with the NPM accordingly. The SPT also recommends that the State Party take steps to increase public awareness about the mandate and work of the NPM and ensure that the NPM is recognised as a key component in the country’s system for prevention of torture and ill-treatment. 41. The SPT recommends that the State Party publish and widely disseminate the Annual Reports of the NPM, including transmitting them to the SPT, in accordance with Article 23 of the Optional Protocol. The SPT urges the State party to introduce an institutional forum for the discussion and follow up to such reports. The SPT wishes to remind the State party of paragraph 29 of the NPM Guidelines, which calls upon States to publish and widely disseminate the NPM Annual Reports, and ensure that these are presented to and discussed in Parliament. 42. The SPT furthermore recommends that the State Party issue an annual report describing the effectiveness of the interaction of the Government with the NPM in assessing and eradicating torture and ill-treatment in places of detention in the Republic of Armenia. This report should be given wide publicity, and could be integrated into a more comprehensive analysis of the human rights situation in the State Party, but should be distinct from other statements related to the Human Rights Defenders Office or any other body. 43. Access. The SPT also notes that in its meetings with authorities, some Government representatives questioned the mandate of the NPM in relation to certain places of deprivation of liberty under their authority. 44. The SPT emphasizes that all relevant Government authorities should allow and enable the NPM to execute its mandate in full compliance with the provisions under OPCAT. The latter includes the obligation of the State to allow visits by the NPM to any place under its jurisdiction and control, public or private, where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public 8