CAT/OP/C/57/4 with national human rights institution staff belongs to the mechanism, which should carefully consider the needs for the information on a case-by-case basis. Opportunities for cooperation between the national preventive mechanism and the Subcommittee and support from the Subcommittee 22. The Subcommittee stands ready to provide advice and assistance, in particular through regular e-mail contact between the national preventive mechanism and the Subcommittee focal point in charge of that State party. Moreover, it is to be noted that the Subcommittee often participates in projects at the national level launched by other bodies specialized in prevention of torture, particularly at the initiative of civil society. Best practices for the establishment of national preventive mechanisms 23. Public Subcommittee reports could be considered as a translation into practice of its guidelines on national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5) and as interpretations of Optional Protocol requirements with respect to national preventive mechanisms. Moreover, at its twenty-sixth session, the Subcommittee decided to publish on its website a compilation of some of its answers to queries from national preventive mechanisms, on an anonymous basis, as a way of providing practical advice on mechanism-related issues. IV. Body searches and pat-downs 24. The national preventive mechanism guidelines provide that the State should ensure that both the members of the national preventive mechanism and its staff enjoy such privileges as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 26). While it is accepted that essential basic security measures are to be complied with for the benefit of all concerned, it is equally important that those working for the national preventive mechanism are not in any way restricted in their work and that they do not feel that they might be subject to any form of pressure. Routine body searches and pat-downs contravene the spirit of the Optional Protocol. 25. Members of the mechanism and its staff should only be subject to or exempt from searches in the same manner as other authorities with similar or equal privileges and immunities as those granted to members of the mechanism by the Optional Protocol and ought to include freedom from such searches. V. National preventive mechanisms and cross-border monitoring of persons in detention 26. Should a State party to the Optional Protocol (a sending State) enter into an arrangement under which those detained by that State are to be held in facilities located in a third State (a receiving State), the Subcommittee considers that the sending State should ensure that such an agreement provides for its national preventive mechanism to have the legal and practical capacity to visit those detainees in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol and the Subcommittee guidelines on national preventive mechanisms. 27. After undertaking such visits, the national preventive mechanism of the sending State should be able to present its recommendations and enter into a preventive dialogue with the authorities of both the sending and receiving State. The agreement entered into between the sending and receiving States should provide for that and should permit the variation of its terms in the light of the recommendations made. 22