CAT/OP/C/57/4 Hierarchical status of the head of the national preventive mechanisms in relation to the ombudsperson/head of the national human rights institution 15. This is a common challenge for many national human rights institutions that assume the national preventive mechanism mandate. According to the Optional Protocol, there should be plurality and a multidisciplinary approach in the national preventive mechanism work. When power is vested in one individual, such as an Ombudsperson, the abovementioned requirements are by definition impossible. In order to guarantee the operational autonomy of the national preventive mechanism and a “flat” relationship between the national human rights institution and the national preventive mechanism, the Subcommittee would recommend placing the mechanism as a parallel structure at the level of the head of the institution and abstaining from situations in which the mechanism is placed under several departments, which diminishes its visibility. 16. Moreover, the Subcommittee has encountered situations in which placement of a national preventive mechanism as a section under, for instance, a legal department, has jeopardized the independence of the mechanism’s decision-making process (see the report of the Subcommittee advisory visit to the national preventive mechanism of Ecuador (CAT/OP/ECU/2)). Ultimately, the organizational chart should reflect the requirements of the Optional Protocol, which specify that the national preventive mechanism should have operational autonomy with regard to its resources, workplan, findings, recommendations and direct, and, if needed, confidential contact with the Subcommittee. Templates of legislation where national human rights institutions were designated as national preventive mechanisms 17. The Subcommittee is of the view that there is no “one size fits all” legislation for States parties in which national human rights institutions are designated as national preventive mechanisms, as the legislation should take into account the idiosyncrasies of national realities. However, public Subcommittee reports could be used and contact with similar institutions could be sought for the purpose of comparison. Relationship between traditional functions of a national human rights institution and the preventive function of a national preventive mechanism 18. The Optional Protocol and Subcommittee guidelines foresee two different and separate structures serving two different mandates and preserving a level of autonomy. 19. While the national preventive mechanism is charged with the core national preventive mechanism functions, this does not preclude other departments or staff of the national human rights institution from contributing to its work, as that cooperation might lead to synergies and complementarity. For instance, the number of complaints received by the institution in relation to a specific place of detention may inform the work of the mechanism. Similarly, the mechanism could refer some cases to the institution for litigation or other action. 20. In order to strengthen national preventive mechanism efficiency, it is important to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly authorities and persons deprived of liberty, are aware of the mechanism’s work and mandate. It is particularly important to ensure public understanding of the nature of its work and emphasize its preventive focus. The Subcommittee has witnessed different strategies used by national preventive mechanisms for that purpose, such as the conduct of public campaigns and development of a web page, a logo and uniforms to be used during monitoring visits. 21. Another issue to take into account is the principle of confidentiality, which should be respected in national preventive mechanism work. The decision to share information 21