Report of the Human Rights Defender on the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland in 2013 1. Operation of the National Preventive Mechanism Pursuant to the Statute of the Office of the Human Rights Defender, Department VII of the Office constitutes the National Preventive Mechanism.6 In 2013, the tasks of the National Preventive Mechanism were performed by 13 employees. The Human Rights Defender on numerous occasions reiterated that the personnel of the Department is insufficient to fully perform the preventive obligations imposed on the HRD. The NPM Department was also supported by personnel of the Offices of Local Representatives of the HRD in Gdańsk and Wrocław. The NPM Team visits all types of places of detention within the meaning of Article 4 of the OPCAT.7 Appropriate assessment of the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty requires information from various sources, which in many cases is impossible without the support and knowledge of experts. Therefore, the visiting teams included also external experts: psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.8 2. Financing In the 2013 financial plan, a  budget of PLN 3,145,717 was allocated to the National Preventive Mechanism. As a result of budget outturn, in 2013 expenditure related to performing the NPM function by the Defender amounted to PLN 3,131,342.02, of which capital expenses were PLN 220,453.24. 3. Cooperation with NGOs In 2013, two meetings of the employees of the National Preventive Mechanism with the representatives of the Coalition for the implementation of the OPCAT were held. On 24 July 2013, a representative of the National Preventive Mechanism attended a seminar organised by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and 6 § 6 of the Annex to the Order No 26/2011 of the Human Rights Defender of 31 August 2011 on the Statute of the Office of the Human Rights Defender. 7 Each State Party shall allow visits, in accordance with the present Protocol, by the mechanisms referred to in articles 2 and 3 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 (hereinafter referred to as places of detention). 8 The list of experts: see Part II. 11