CAT/C/46/2 preventive system and it is concerned that a considerable number of States parties remain in breach of this obligation. 61. The Subcommittee is able to offer advice and assistance on the establishment of an NPM, and believes that States parties should seek such advice and assistance at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that they comply with their obligations under the Optional Protocol in this regard. To assist in this process, the Subcommittee has revised its initial guidance regarding the establishment of NPMs and this is set out in chapter V of this report. H. The forms that national preventive mechanisms may take 62. The Subcommittee is frequently asked if there is a preferred model for an NPM to take. The answer is that there is not. The form and structure of the NPM is likely to reflect a variety of factors which are particular to the country concerned, and it is not for the Subcommittee to say in the abstract what may or may not be appropriate. All NPMs must of course be independent. Beyond this, the Subcommittee looks at NPMs from a functional perspective, and recognizes that just because one model works well in one country does not mean it will work well in another. What is important is that the model adopted works well in its country of operation. This is why the Subcommittee does not formally “assess” or “accredit” NPMs as being in compliance with the criteria set forth in the Protocol. Rather, the Subcommittee works with designated NPMs in order to assist them to better operate in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the Optional Protocol. V. Substantive issues A. Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms 63. The Optional Protocol provides considerable, detailed guidance concerning the establishment of a national preventive mechanism (NPM), including its mandate and powers. The most relevant of these provisions are articles 3, 4, 17–23, 29 and 35, although other provisions of the Optional Protocol are also of importance for NPMs. It is axiomatic that all NPMs must be structured in a manner which fully reflects these provisions. 64. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that it has in place an NPM which complies with the requirements of the Optional Protocol. For its part, the Subcommittee works with those bodies which it has been informed have been designated by the State as its NPM. Whilst the Subcommittee does not, nor does it intend to formally assess the extent to which NPMs conform to the Optional Protocol’s requirements, it does consider it a vital part of its role to advise and assist States and NPMs in fulfilling their obligations under the Optional Protocol. To this end, the Subcommittee has previously set out “preliminary guidelines” concerning the ongoing development of NPMs in its first annual report. It has had the occasion to further amplify its thinking in subsequent annual reports and also in a number recommendations set out in its visit reports. In the light of the experience it has gained, the Subcommittee believes it would be useful to issue a revised set of guidelines on national preventive mechanisms which reflect and respond to some of the questions and issues which have arisen in practice. 65. These guidelines do not seek to repeat what is set out in the text of the Optional Protocol, but to add further clarity regarding the Subcommittee’s expectations regarding the establishment and operation of NPMs. Section 1 sets out a number of basic principles”, which should inform all aspects of the work of an NPM. This is followed in section 2 by guidelines addressed primarily to States and concerning a number of issues relating to the GE.11-40683 17