detect any change in their mandate, methodology, intensity or regularity of activities that reflects their new OPCAT related functions. 35.It is not for the SPT to give an opinion as to the constitutionality of the designation process. This is reserved for the Swedish authorities. The SPT, however, will need to assess Sweden’s compliance with the provisions of OPCAT. In these circumstances, the lack of additional resources, constitutionality challenges and the perception that the two designated institutions have of themselves and their methodologies, might, in the view of the SPT, influence the prospect of a comprehensive and effective prevention work in Sweden under the OPCAT. 36.The SPT is of the view that preventive work requires a significant degree of pro activeness. While registering, investigating and adjudicating individual complaints constitute very important components of a comprehensive plan of human rights protection, they do not meet per se the ultimate requirements of prevention. Prevention necessitates the examination of rights and conditions from the very outset of deprivation of liberty until the moment of release. Such examination should take a multi-disciplinary approach and involve, for example, the medical profession, children and gender specialists and psychologists in addition to a strict legal focus. This means the monitoring of compliance with the vast array of human rights directly or indirectly affected by deprivation of liberty, even in cases where no complaints have been received. The ideal and ultimate goal of prevention is to counter the need for any complaints in the first place. E. Recommendations 37.Given the complexities and ambiguities of the present situation of the NPMs in Sweden, the SPT will need to further study this issue to reach a comprehensive conclusion. However, the SPT can already anticipate that there will be a need for a profound reexamination, including consultations with the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice as well all other relevant stakeholders, as to the decision originally taken by the government to designate these institutions as the NPMs. 38.The SPT is of the view that if the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice are to be responsible for undertaking visits to places of detention, in compliance with the Sweden’s obligations set out under the OPCAT, the relevant Swedish authorities should examine their current mandates, to ensure that they are in a position to comply fully with all the requirements inherent to this task. When conducting their activities as NPMs, their visiting methodology should reflect a preventive approach, which, although complementary, differs substantially from their current, complaint-driven activities. The Swedish authorities should also ensure that these bodies receive the necessary additional resources and training to function as NPMs. 38.The SPT emphasizes that to be in a position independently to exercise the minimum powers assigned to it in article 19 of OPCAT an NPM must have structures equipped with the human, material and financial resources which will enable it to function satisfactorily in the light of the number and distribution of places of detention (OPCAT, article 4) and the numbers of persons to be visited regularly and with a periodicity which is reasonable for adequate monitoring. In this connection the Paris Principles offer an adequate set of standards to ensure the genuine functional independence of the NPMs and the persons who form part of it. 40.As a body complementing, at a national level, the work of the SPT, the NPM is in a frontline position to ensure the continuity of the dialogue with the national authorities on the issues relating to prevention of ill-treatment. To this end, the NPM should make recommendations to the competent authorities with the aim of improving the treatment and the conditions of the persons deprived of their liberty and to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In doing so, the NPM should pay due attention to the relevant norms of the United Nations as well as the recommendations made by the SPT, if such recommendations are made public or communicated to the NPM in accordance with article 16 of OPCAT. Furthermore, one of the key aspects of the work of the NPM is to maintain direct contact with the SPT and facilitate exchange of information in order to follow up the compliance of the reports of the SPT, if those reports are made public in accordance with article 16 of OPCAT. 41. The SPT wishes to indicate some guidelines concerning certain key features of NPMs and recommends that the government takes these features into account when re-examining its decision : (a) The mandate and powers of the NPM should be clearly and specifically established in national legislation as a constitutional or legislative text. The broad definition of places of deprivation of liberty as per OPCAT shall be reflected in that text; (b) The NPM should be developed by a public, inclusive and transparent process of establishment, including civil society and other actors involved in the prevention of torture; where an existing body is considered for designation as the NPM, the matter should be open for debate, involving civil society; (c) The independence of the NPM, both actual and perceived, should be fostered by a transparent process of selection and appointment of members who are independent and do not hold a position which could raise qu estions of conflict of interest; (d) Selection of members should be based on stated criteria relating to the experience and expertise required to carry out NPM w ork effectively and impartially; (e) NPM membership should be gender balanced and have adequate representation of ethnic, minority and indigenous groups; (f) The State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the expert members of the NPM have the required capabilities and professional knowledge. Training should be provided to NPMs ; (g) Adequate resources should be provided for the specific work of NPMs in accordance with Article 18, 3 of the OPCAT; these should be ring-fenced, in terms of both budget and human resources;