CAT/OP/ARM/1 23. In addition, the SPT has observed that the interaction and cooperation between these bodies depends largely on the readiness of the different organs to do so. The result is that the efforts undertaken for the prevention of torture are largely ad hoc and irregular in nature, lacking any overall strategy, systematized follow up, and mutual cooperation. The SPT also notes that several authorities have expressed the preference that sustainable and effective arrangements be put in place instead of a fragmented structure. 24. The SPT therefore deems it crucial that the State party first of all articulate a unified vision of its work of torture prevention, a vision that takes into account the best practices, challenges and other experiences accumulated by the different mechanisms that have existed at the national level to monitor places of detention, and that takes into account the differentiated roles of State, civil society and international cooperation. The aim of such an exercise would be to determine how overlapping mandates and duplication of efforts may be avoided and to determine, together with the relevant national stakeholders, which institutional configuration would be the most effective and efficient structure for the prevention of torture in the Republic of Armenia. 25. Legal basis. A striking weakness in the current functioning of the NPM is the absence of a separate legislative text regulating its functions, mandate, relation with subsidiary bodies, such as the current Expert Council, and other issues that ought to be regulated, in line with part IV of the OPCAT. 26. While the institutional format in which the NPM is set up is left to the State Party’s discretion, it is imperative that the NPM law ensures full compliance with OPCAT and the SPT “Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms”2 as well as the functional and operational independence of the NPM, also taking into consideration the Paris Principles. The SPT deems the adoption of a separate NPM law as a crucial step, though only after the articulation of the vision for the prevention of torture and identification of the appropriate NPM model for the Republic of Armenia, as mentioned above in paragraph 24. 27. The SPT wishes to emphasize the importance that the NPM be granted, as a minimum, the power to regularly examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in all places of detention, as defined in article 4 OPCAT, to issue recommendations to the relevant authorities, and to submit proposals and observations on existing or draft legislation. It is furthermore important that the NPM is funded through a separate budget line in the State budget, and be assured complete financial and operational autonomy. 28. Financial resources. The SPT notes that the HRDO, and hence the NPM, is characterised by a lack of financial resources. The adoption of the 2013 annual budget by the Government did not include the 11 million AMD increase asked for by the Human Rights Defender in order to adequately carry out the NPM mandate. In reaction, the Human Rights Defender stated in the national press that only 50 per cent of the minimal demands of its staff is financed by the State budget, the rest assured through foreign grants, a construction that he deemed a blow to his independence. The Human Rights Defender decided that for 2014 he will not apply for foreign grants anymore, and requested that international organizations fund the NGOs directly. 29. An example of one of such grants was the “Preventing Torture and Ill-treatment in Closed and Semi-Closed Institutions Indifference” project, funded by the British Embassy in Armenia. The project was implemented by the NGO “TRTU” (one of the NGO members 2 6 CAT/OP/12/5.