CAT/OP/KAZ/1 Human Rights Commissioner might affect the impartiality and independence of the mechanism. 17. While the decision on the institutional format of the national preventive mechanism is left to the discretion of States parties, it is imperative that national preventive mechanism laws are in full compliance with the Optional Protocol and the guidelines on national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5). Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends the enactment of a separate law that ensures the functional and operational independence of the mechanism, with due consideration paid to the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles). 18. The Subcommittee further recommends that the mandate of the Human Rights Commissioner be separated from that of the national preventive mechanism so that mechanism functions can be performed autonomously, in line with the guidelines of the Subcommittee. 19. The Subcommittee recommends extending the current one-year mandate of the members of the national preventive mechanism in order to ensure some continuity. All mechanism participants should undergo training, including on interview techniques, visiting procedures and skills to detect signs and risks of torture and illtreatment. 20. The Subcommittee further observes that there are no explicit provisions in the legislation related to the national preventive mechanism regarding earmarked funding; rather, it is stated that expenses incurred by the members of the mechanism are to be reimbursed in accordance with government orders. The Subcommittee underlines that the lack of budgetary independence may have a negative impact on the independent functioning of the mechanism. 21. The Subcommittee recalls that under article 18 (3) of the Optional Protocol, States parties are required to undertake to make available the necessary resources for the functioning of the national preventive mechanisms. Therefore, it recommends that funding be provided for the effective functioning of the mechanism through a specific budget line in the national annual budget, and that the mechanism be granted institutional autonomy for the use of its resources. 22. The legislation related to the national preventive mechanism does not contain a single, overarching definition of “deprivation of liberty”. Rather, the legislative changes to the 16 existing laws indicated that the mechanism would have access to prisons, army detention facilities, pretrial detention facilities, institutions for juveniles and a variety of health-care institutions, such as psychiatric institutions and centres for treatment of drug addiction, among others. However, the amendments appear not to cover centres where asylum seekers and refugees are held, social care homes and other places where persons may be deprived of their liberty. 23. The Subcommittee emphasizes that, in accordance with article 4 of the Optional Protocol, the State is to allow visits to any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public authority or at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence. Therefore, any place in which a person is, or might be, deprived of liberty, in the sense of not being free to leave, should fall within the scope of the national preventive mechanism. 24. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism be empowered, through legislative means, to exercise core national preventive mechanism functions, including the powers to regularly examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in all places of deprivation of liberty, as defined in article 4 of the Optional Protocol, to issue recommendations to relevant authorities and to submit proposals and observations on existing and draft legislation. 25. The Subcommittee notes with concern that the legislation related to the national preventive mechanism provides that persons suspected of a crime cannot be members of the mechanism. This not only stands at odds with the presumption of innocence but may lead to abuse. Persons registered in psychiatric and/or drug-treatment institutions do not have the 5