A/73/207 2. National institutional framework 32. The effective national implementation of the prohibition of torture and ill treatment requires a robust institutional framework for the application, oversight and enforcement of the relevant norms and standards. (a) Criminal justice and complaints mechanisms 33. Effective and independent complaints and investigation mechanisms, includi ng prosecutorial and judicial authorities able to adjudicate violations and prosecute and punish perpetrators, are vital. In practice, non-judicial complaints mechanisms often are the weakest link in the institutional framework. In many States, such mechan isms either do not exist or are insufficiently accessible to potential victims or jeopardized by a lack of structural or functional independence and impartiality. Where such mechanisms enjoy formal independence, they often depend on the same ministry as the service under review, resulting in conflicts of interest that gravely undermine their ability to operate as required. In many States, an alarmingly close relationship can be observed between prosecution services, the judiciary and the police, which sever ely undermines the separation of powers, judicial independence and the rule of law (A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, paras. 79, 146–151, 174–175 and 255). The resulting pervasive culture of impunity remains a significant challenge to the eradication of torture and ill-treatment throughout the world. (b) Monitoring mechanisms 34. The regular and independent monitoring of places of detention by specifically mandated human rights bodies and humanitarian organizations is one of the most effective safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. Oversight and transparency are therefore vital and, despite many challenges in practice, an increasing number of States are accepting the idea of regular oversight of places of dete ntion by international bodies such as the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, and by national bodies and institutions, including NPMs, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and civil society organizations. ICRC has an impressive record of regular visits to persons detained for reasons related to armed conflicts, although in non -international armed conflicts access depends on the willingness of all belligerents. 35. The ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by 88 States and the fact that NPMs established thereunder have the power to visit, at any time, any place of deprivation of liberty, including prisons, police stations, health-care settings, immigration detention centres, social-care homes, centres for children or homes for older persons, is a very positive development. To make NPMs truly effective, States must fulfil their obligations under the Optional Protocol and establish mechanisms that are formally and de facto independent from the authorities they monitor, adequately funded and competent to monitor all places of detention regularly and conduct private interviews with any persons deprived of their liberty. (c) Broader human rights environment 36. Torture and ill-treatment are more likely to persist in a system that lacks a strong institutional human rights framework. Conversely, the presence of robust human rights institutions can help to prevent such abuse. In particular, provided with the necessary independence and funding, NHRIs can play a substantial role in ensuring the harmonization and implementation of national laws and practices relevant to the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. More generally, a safe environment for civil 10/23 18-12051