financial resources. However, in the meeting with the Attorney-General, the delegation was informed that the authorities plan to introduce a system of legal aid assistance and possibilities to benefit from the assistance of a private lawyer will be enhanced. 61.By a note verbale of 22 June 2008 the authorities informed the SPT that the Government notes the absence of a legal aid scheme in the Maldives at present, and that steps have already been taken to establish a system of legal aid. The SPT also notes that article 53 of the new Constitution, in addition to laying down the right of everyone to retain and instruct legal counsel at any instance where legal assistance is required, provides that “in serious criminal cases, the State shall provide a lawyer for an accused person who cannot afford to engage one”. The SPT welcomes the new constitutional provision on legal aid assistance. The SPT requests information on any possible legislative changes this new constitutional provision will bring, the definition of a “ serious offence �� , and the time a person may be held in custody before being formally accused of an offence. In addition, the SPT requests information on the plans and time frame to establish this system, including necessary structures, to ensure its effective functioning also in practice, and a copy of any new legislation once adopted. 62.From a preventive point of view, access to a lawyer is an important safeguard against ill treatment which is a broader concept than providing legal assistance solely for conducting one’s defence. The presence of a lawyer during police questioning may not only deter the police from resorting to ill-treatment or other abuses, but may also work as a protection for police officers in case they face unfounded allegations of ill-treatment. In addition, the lawyer is the key person in assisting the person deprived of liberty in exercising his or her rights, including access to complaints mechanisms. The SPT recommends extension of the system to cover all persons deprived of liberty who cannot, due to financial or other reasons, benefit from the assistance of a private lawyer, and that from as early a stage of the deprivation of liberty as possible, preferably from the outset. 8. Conclusions 63.The SPT is of the view that oversight of all places of deprivation of liberty exercised by independent bodies, judicial and prosecutorial oversight of custody, the possibility to lodge a complaint to an independent body charged with examining allegations of ill-treatment, coupled with access to a lawyer de jure and de facto are key safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. The SPT would also like to underline the duty of all complaints mechanisms to ensure that allegations of torture and/or ill-treatment are thoroughly investigated and perpetrators brought to justice. 64.However, the mere theoretical existence of these safeguards is not enough; to guarantee protection against ill-treatment it is necessary that they fulfil their function also in practice. To this end, the SPT emphasizes that the complaints and oversight mechanisms, the judiciary and the prosecutors should not only be independent, but must be seen to be independent, and that necessary staff and financial resources should be made available to them to carry out their functions. II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM 65.As already noted, the Maldivian authorities had notified the designation of the National Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) on 10 December 2007. 66.Under the terms of the OPCAT, the SPT is empowered to cooperate with States parties in the implementation of the Protocol, advising and assisting them in the launching of NPMs, without which the new system would be neither effective nor efficient for purposes of achievement of the objective of preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A. Meeting with the National Preventive Mechanism 67.In the meeting with the Human Rights Commission, preliminary discussions took place about the scope of the mandate of this mechanism as related to the international mandate required in accordance with OPCAT, and the importance of its creation and functioning being in compliance with the international standards as outlined in the Protocol. The discussion concerned the need to give due consideration to the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, so called Paris principles, in particular to the requirement to establish the mandate in a constitutional or legislative text specifying the NPM’s composition and spheres of competence, as enshrined in principle 2. 68.During this exchange of ideas the main challenges for this new national preventive mechanism in its daily work within the country and its relationship with the SPT were discussed and analysed. Among the main issues raised were the following: The importance of this national mechanism being established in law. In this regard, the SPT recognizes that a presidential decree is an important step, but it is not sufficient to guarantee the permanent character and the sustainability that the national mechanism should have. Therefore, the SPT urges the Republic of the Maldives to continue the implementation of this process until a law is adopted that meets this requirement. If the National Human Rights Commission is to maintain the character of a national preventive mechanism, the State of the Maldives must provide it with sufficient human and material resources to meet its objectives. This should not happen as an additional charge to its existing activities: the preventive entity should have its own agenda, separated from the activities the HRCM usually carries out as part of its general mandate. In this regard, it must include an autonomous programme of visits to all places of detention and custody of persons (prisons, police stations, psychiatric hospitals, centres for minors, immigrant detention centres, etc.). With regard to unannounced visits to places of detention by the National Human Rights Commission in its capacity as a national mechanism for the prevention of torture, apart from the mandate that this Commission already has in conformity with its statute of creation, this requires a mandate to fulfil the international obligations under the OPCAT, as assumed by the State party through the