CAT/OP/PRT/1 needs additional support in order to carry out its mandate effectively, despite the ombudsperson’s efforts to obtain such funding. The Subcommittee does not agree with such an assessment. For instance, in 2015, the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees did not approve the ombudsperson’s proposal for three staff members to be allocated to work exclusively for the national preventive mechanism. 6 During the visit, the ombudsperson informed the delegation that she was hoping to be able, finally, to hire a dedicated staff member to deal specifically with the national preventive mechanism work. 18. The Subcommittee reminds the State party that, in order for a national preventive mechanism to fulfil its mandate effectively, it should have a separate secretariat and its own staff and should be able to have recourse to external experts, including medical experts, interpreters and others, as necessary, when such expertise is not available internally. To ensure the functional and operational independence of the national preventive mechanism, and with a view to clearly identifying the nature and extent of these additional needs, the State party should consult directly with the mechanism in a constructive manner to ascertain what is needed to permit it to properly fulfil its mandate in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol. 19. According to the 2014 annual report of the ombudsperson, the national preventive mechanism took steps with the members of the Advisory Council to establish a list of experts who would participate in the visits of the mechanism. 7 In 2016 the national preventive mechanism carried out 53 visits to places of deprivation of liberty. The teams of visitors were composed of the members of the Advisory Council, the Visitors Team and external experts.8 During the visit, the Subcommittee was informed that 15 specialists (14 lawyers and 1 psychologist) usually participated in the visits. The Subcommittee is of the view that in order to be able to carry out visits under the Optional Protocol the visiting team has to be wider in professional competence and expertise and should, for example, include the participation of medical experts. 20. The Subcommittee emphasizes that the national preventive mechanism should complement rather than replace the existing systems of oversight, and its functioning should take into account effective cooperation and coordination between preventive mechanisms in the country. The national preventive mechanism, in cooperation with the ombudsperson, should clearly separate the respective mandates, that is, budget, human resources and other technical support, so that each can carry out all aspects of the respective mandates effectively and independently. 21. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party allocate, as a matter of priority, the financial resources needed by the national preventive mechanism, as required by article 18 (3) of the Optional Protocol and the Subcommittee’s national preventive mechanism guidelines (CAT/OP/12/5, para. 11). If the mechanism is to have functional independence, it must have full control over its staff and not be dependent on the decisions of other State bodies. 22. The Subcommittee also recommends that this funding be provided through a separate line in the annual national budget referring specifically to the national preventive mechanism, as advised by the Subcommittee in its response to national preventive mechanism requests (CAT/C/57/4, annex, paras. 11–23). It further recommends that this funding be at such a level as to allow the mechanism to carry out its visiting programme, hire its own human resources, engage outside experts and regularly participate in training programmes. 23. The Subcommittee urges the State party, in close cooperation with the national preventive mechanism, to review the legal framework in which the mechanism operates and to bring it into full conformity with all relevant international norms and 6 7 8 Ibid. See www.provedor-jus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/Relatorio_a_Assembleia_da_Republica_2014_ MNP_ING_.pdf. See www.provedor-jus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/National_Preventive_Mechanism_Report_to_the_ Parliament_2016__EN__0.pdf. 5