CAT/OP/C/57/4 8. Should a national preventive mechanism become aware of allegedly criminal activity, whether of torture, related crimes or other categories of crime, such activity may be reported, but unless there is express consent, personal data related to it shall be protected. That is to say, the obligation of confidentiality should not be construed as preventing national preventive mechanisms from disseminating information, provided that the information does not include personal data, unless express consent is given by the person concerned. Thus, for example, where information relating to systematic issues or crimes is gathered, its existence can be reported in general terms. However, particular care must be taken to assess whether the sharing of information relating to a particular situation or particular crime might inevitably lead to the disclosure of personal data or to the identification of a person who has not given their express consent for their personal data to be revealed. In such cases the obligation of confidentiality prevails. 9. It is the view of the Subcommittee that publishing personal data equates to the sharing of such information with a third party. 10. Wherever legislation requires the national preventive mechanism or its officials to report crimes and/or share information, the principle of confidentiality as provided for in Optional Protocol, and as explained above, shall prevail. III. Organizational issues regarding national preventive mechanisms that form part of a national human rights institution Financial autonomy of the national preventive mechanism with respect to the budget of the national human rights institution 11. Article 18 (1) of the Optional Protocol is unequivocal on the need for the State party to allocate specific resources to national preventive mechanism work, so as to guarantee the operational independence of the mechanism (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 8). The Subcommittee guidelines on national preventive mechanisms indicate explicitly that the mechanism should enjoy complete financial and operational autonomy when carrying out its functions under the Optional Protocol (ibid., para. 12). 12. This implies that national preventive mechanisms must be capable of acting independently, not only from the State but also from the national human rights institution. For that purpose, the State party should ensure a specific allocation of funds to the national preventive mechanism. 13. A request for the national preventive mechanism budget should be drafted by the mechanism itself, on the basis of the mechanism workplan, and submitted to the State authorities and/or legislative power separately from that of the national human rights institution. In case of a public hearing or audience in the National Assembly/Congress, the Subcommittee is of the view that the head of the national preventive mechanism should present the draft budget and respond to any related questions. Once the budget is approved, decision-making regarding the use of specific mechanism resources remains the prerogative of the mechanism itself. 14. Needless to say, coordination between the national human rights institution and the national preventive mechanism could be very beneficial and joint advocacy and awarenessraising campaigns could be envisaged in order to collect funds and explain the nature of each entity’s work, particularly the fact that the mandates of the two entities are complimentary. 20