CAT/OP/BRA/2 or reprisals, and, where relevant, a fair criminal prosecution that results (if there is a conviction) in the imposition of adequate sanctions proportionate to the gravity of the crime, (b) awareness raising programmes, - including posters, accessible literature and workshops, - informing detainees and defence lawyers of their rights, access to complaints mechanisms etc. (c) ongoing training for all detaining staff, in all States, about legal safeguards, and acceptable standards of detention, treatment and regime for detained people. 24. The SPT further recommends that the first of these particularly, - i.e. a zerotolerance approach, - should be regarded as a priority approach which is given particular emphasis in training for all staff. 25. In addition, to address and to help highlight the disconnect between law and practice, the SPT recommends the implementation of regular independent oversight through visits by members of the judiciary, the NPM (which the SPT hopes will soon be established), the regional preventive visiting mechanism (where there is one, see para. 32 below) and other groups such as NGOs. V. National Preventive Mechanism A. NPM 26. OPCAT, Article 17, obliges states to designate or establish a National Preventive Mechanism within one year of its entry into force, that is in conformity with the provisions set out in the Protocol and informed by the SPT’s Guidelines. 27. The SPT wishes to highlight that the NPM for Brazil should have been designated by February 2008, and that with a delay of some 5 years, it is failing to meet its international obligations. The SPT takes note that draft legislation for the National Preventive Mechanism is currently under review as a priority by the Chamber of Deputies. Indeed, the SPT has recently learned (April 2013) that the Chamber of Deputies has approved the Bill and that it must now be passed through Senate. The SPT recommends that this process should be expedited and that the legislation should be in force with the least possible delay. The SPT requests further details of the Bill’s status and progress through Parliament. 28. The SPT takes note of Brazil’s claim that the Bill is ‘consistent with the requirements of independence, effectiveness, efficacy and politically feasible cooperation among different institutions that have competence and attributions [sic] related to the subject.’ (Reply, para. 166). Nevertheless, the SPT is very conscious that its own view of the most recent draft legislation it has seen was not consistent with this position. (Report para. 16). In particular, the SPT was concerned about the method for selecting NPM Members which is not capable of ensuring the independence of NPM Members. The SPT repeats the recommendation which it made at paragraph 17 of its visit Report. The SPT further requests to be sent a copy, for its comment, on the most recent legislative Bill as it is being decided before Parliament. 29. The SPT is further concerned by the reference to ‘politically feasible cooperation’ in the Brazilian Reply. This is not suggestive of full cooperation with the NPM, as OPCAT would require and the SPT would expect. The SPT requests Brazil to clarify the meaning of this phrase and details specifically of what cooperation is considered to be 7