CAT/OP/DEU/2 institutions have not so far (with rare exceptions) been visited by the NPM due to a lack of adequate expertise. 22. While the SPT appreciates and acknowledges that the NPM members possess a great amount of experience in their respective fields, the SPT observed that, due to insufficient resources and inadequate training, the NPM is concentrating on monitoring activities which are not carried out in an appropriate manner, while other aspects particular to its prevention mandate are not fully covered. According to the SPT, the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment should not be limited to monitoring of the material conditions of deprivation of liberty but involves other aspects such as solutions to complex issues, including detention pending deportation, use of physical restraints (Fixierung), preventive detention and solitary confinement. In particular, the SPT noticed that the NPM did not pay adequate attention to the reasons for which persons were deprived of their liberty and to the issues of respecting legal safeguards, and that of non-refoulement in the context of deportations to the countries where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be at risk of torture or ill-treatment upon return. 23. The SPT recommends to the NPM that the strategic plan to be adopted (see paragraph 17) evaluate and articulate its needs regarding the mandate, resources and the concerned institutions’ obligations. The NPM should systematically inform, in written form, all places of deprivation of liberty about the Optional Protocol, the concept of prevention of torture and ill-treatment, the NPM mandate and corresponding obligations of the Federal, State and detention authorities. The mandate of the mechanism should not be limited to visiting and monitoring the material conditions of deprivation of liberty, but it should involve innovative solutions for the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment such as in the context of detention pending deportation, use of physical restraints (Fixierung), preventive detention and solitary confinement. The SPT also recommends to the NPM that it (i) evaluates the reasons why persons were deprived of their liberty, (ii) considers the extent to which legal safeguards are observed in practice, and (iii) considers the practice concerning the obligation of non-refoulement in the context of deportations to the countries where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be at risk of torture or ill-treatment upon return. 24. High turnover of the NPM members due to frequent resignations from the Joint Commission is a matter of concern. Resignations by the members who serve on honorary basis were explained as being the result of the lack of appropriate resources allocated to the mechanism and the lack of availability of some members due to their daily professional or other personal commitments. The SPT is of the view that this situation affects the ability to establish an effective professional NPM, as it cannot guarantee the continuity of the NPM work over time. 25. The SPT recommends that members of the NPM should be available to perform their functions and serve the mechanism efficiently, as provided for in Article 5, paragraph 6, of the Optional Protocol. 26. Members of the Federal Agency are being appointed while those of the Joint Commission are selected by the Ministers of Justice of the States. The current appointment procedure of the NPM members lacks transparency and inclusion as there is little outreach to the public and civil society. Further, the current practice of selecting members to the NPM does not reflect the SPT Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms as the members are not selected through an open, transparent and inclusive process.6 6 6 CAT/OP/12/5, para. 16.