rights of persons deprived of their liberty. These safeguards are considered not so much as due process safeguards — this task falls to other United Nations bodies — but as instruments of prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 16.In subsequent sections of the report, the SPT examines the concrete situation of people deprived of their liberty in different settings in the light of those safeguards and the access thereto, which the SPT considers will, if properly established and/or maintained, diminish the risk of ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. The SPT makes recommendations concerning changes to improve the situations encountered and to ensure the development and improvement of a coherent system of safeguards in law and in practice. I.Development of the National Preventive Mechanism 17.The SPT was provided with information before the visit about the process of development to date concerning the NPM, the Observatoire National de Prévention de la Torture (‘ONPT’). The SPT welcomes the fact that there had been open preparatory consultation with civil society on this matter, which culminated in the drafting of legislation in August 2007. The SPT congratulates all involved in achieving this important first step towards placing the NPM on a statutory basis. The SPT regrets that, despite requesting meetings with members of the Ad-hoc Working Group during its visit to Benin, it was unable to meet with them. It is also concerned that civil society does not seem to be aware of the draft legislation, nor involved in its development at this stage. The SPT considers it important to continue to foster public debate concerning the NPM, in order to ensure adherence to the principles — openness, transparency, inclusiveness and independence — in the process of adoption of the legislation and the establishment of the NPM, as referred to in the OPCAT, so that the NPM will command the confidence of the public generally. 18. The SPT requests information concerning steps taken to foster public debate at this later stage about the adoption of the legislation and the development of the NPM. 19.The SPT examined the draft legislation provided at the time of the visit and dated 23 August 2007. After the visit, the SPT requested further information on the process of adoption of the draft legislation. The government of Benin provided an update in its note verbale of 7 November 2008, and the SPT was provided with a copy of the amended draft legislation in December 2008. The SPT considers that it contains provisions capable of establishing a firm basis for the NPM, and generally in line with the preliminary guidelines on the development of NPMs put forward by the SPT in its first annual report in May 2008. In particular, the SPT notes with satisfaction the following elements: The draft legislation includes a broad definition of places where people are or may be deprived of liberty in line with the provisions of the OPCAT It provides powers of access for the NPM in line with those envisaged in the OPCAT The NPM is described as being financially independent (“autonomie financière” and “un organe indépendant qui a pour but de prévenir la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants, notamment dans les lieux de détention” (Articles 1 and 3)) There is an express prohibition of any sanctions/reprisals against any person or organisation who may have given information to the NPM Provision is made for co-operation between the NPM and international bodies at the global and regional level The NPM is to publish an annual report after submitting it to the President 20.As to the membership of the five-person NPM, the SPT welcomes the fact that attention is given to the requirement for gender diversity of members of the NPM, and for members having relevant experience in the field of administration of justice in particular. The SPT also notes that the members will be nominated by Ministerial decree, upon a suggestion made by the Minister of Justice and Human Rights. The SPT notes a revision of the previous provision that exercise of any function which could affect the independence and impartiality of a member of the NPM would be incompatible with membership of the NPM. The revised draft legislation now includes a provision of ineligibility to serve on the NPM for anyone involved in public employment, any political or professional activity or any elected office. The SPT is concerned about the exclusion of anyone exercising a professional function and recommends that this be reconsidered, as it would appear to exclude a practising legal or medical professional from NPM membership. In order to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the members of the NPM, the SPT recommends that the draft law provide that membership of the NPM is incompatible with any other function which could affect its independence and impartiality. The SPT notes that the draft legislation provides for a selection panel made up of senior persons in the legal and medical professions, and includes a representative of civil society. The SPT trusts that membership of the five-person NPM will also reflect such diversity. The SPT recommends that priority be given to the inclusion in the NPM of a medical professional. 21.As to the budget for the NPM, the SPT is concerned that some of the previous provisions for autonomous management by the NPM of its budget and its financial reporting to the accounting chamber of the Supreme Court have been dropped from the revised legislation. The SPT recommends that these provisions be reinstated. 22.The SPT is particularly concerned that article 19 of the draft law provided by the authorities on 5 December 2008 indicates that a ministerial decree will lay down the modalities of work of the NPM ( “un décret pris en Conseil des Ministres déterminera les modalités de fonctionnement de l ’ Observatoire” ). The SPT recommends that the modalities of work of the NPM be spelt out clearly in the draft NPM law, and not left to subsequent decrees, unless those decrees are also the subject of broad public consultation and debate.