CAT/OP/ARM/1 of the Expert Council), with the support of staff of the HRDO Department for the Prevention of Torture and Violence and Expert Council representatives. The project ended on 30 March 2013, with over 130 visits conducted in total. 30. One of the consequences of this lack of funding was the inability of the HRDO to pay for the expenses of the members of the Expert Council. This led to the amendment in February 2012 of the Order establishing the Expert Council, with the effect that the Expert Council was supposed to perform its functions totally independently and without administrative support from the HRDO. The Expert Council continued its visits in March and April 2012 in a supporting capacity to the NPM but discontinued functioning from May/June 2012 due to a continued lack of funding. Up to that point, all the expenses for the monitoring activities of the Expert Council seem to have been paid for by the members themselves. Therefore, the Expert Council is currently solely dependent on project funding and cannot be regarded as an effective part of the Ombudsman “plus” model. 31. In addition, the current dire financial situation of the NPM has also impacted the capacity of the NPM to issue periodic and ad hoc reports. 32. The SPT urges the State party to provide the NPM, in its current and future form, with the financial resources needed in order for it to be able to systematically and adequately accomplish all tasks it is mandated to fulfil, in line with paragraphs 8, 11 and 12 of the NPM Guidelines, as well as paragraph 40.8 of the national human rights strategy of 2012 developed by the Security Council of Armenia. The State party should ensure funding to the NPM through a separate line in the national annual budget referring specifically to the NPM. This funding should be at such a level as to allow the NPM to carry out its visiting programme in all regions of the country and to conduct follow-up visits, recalling that an adequate budget helps secure the functional and perceived independence of the NPM. It should also allow the NPM to draw up annual work plans for visits, and to systematically enlist the support of bodies it is cooperating with. Such funds should also be sufficient for the logistical and other infrastructure related needs, including publication of its reports and relevant dissemination tools, arising from the execution of its mandate. 33. Human resources. The SPT notes that the current capacity of the HRDO to conduct visits is severely limited. The Department for Prevention of Torture and Violence of the HRDO consists of 3 professionals (the head of the department, a lawyer and a doctor), whilst, as of August 2013, the position of psychologist is vacant. 34. The SPT emphasizes that the State should ensure that the NPM is able to carry out visits in the manner and frequency that the NPM itself decides, providing the NPM with the necessary resources to permit the effective operation of the NPM. Besides the necessary financial resources, this obligation also entails enabling the NPM to have a sufficient number of staff and guaranteeing their independence. 35. The SPT also notes that there are no formal requirements for membership in the NPM Expert Council as neither the amended 2003 Act on the Public Defender nor the 2010 Order by the Public Defender on the Torture Prevention Expert Council contain any particulars. There is also no requirement of expertise in the field of torture prevention and no statute on holding incompatible positions or a prohibition to sit on more than one monitoring mechanism. 36. The SPT recommends that the State party ensure that the NPM, in its current and future format, is staffed with a sufficient number of personnel so that its capacity reflects the number of places of detention within its mandate, as well as be sufficient to fulfil its other essential mandated functions under the Optional Protocol. The SPT also recommends that the State party ensure that these experts have the required 7