CAT/C/KAZ/CO/3 report that is subject to prior review and approval by the President. Recalling its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, para. 23) adopted in November 2008, the Committee is concerned at continued reports regarding the limited competence and lack of independence of the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman) (art. 2). The State party should ensure the independence of the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman) by establishing it through a constitutional or legal text, and should broaden its mandate to enable it to function effectively in all parts of the country in its expanded role as both the national human rights institution in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles) and as the national preventive mechanism in compliance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention. The mandate of the National Preventive Mechanism should be broadened to include monitoring of all places of deprivation of liberty, such as offices of police departments and of the National Security Service, orphanages, medical social institutions for children with certain disabilities, special boarding schools, nursing homes and military barracks, and examining the conditions and treatment of children in penitentiary and non-penitentiary institutions. Measures should be taken to improve the ability of the mechanism to carry out urgent and unannounced visits to places of detention upon its request. The State party should consider authorizing the mechanism to publicize its findings and recommendations shortly after undertaking visits rather than only on an annual basis and to ensure that the mechanism’s members and the public can assess whether their recommendations have been acted upon. The annual and other reports of the mechanism should not be subject to review and approval by the President before publication. Monitoring of places of detention 14. The Committee welcomes the State party’s continued support for the work of 14 Public Monitoring Committees with 101 members from a diverse group of nongovernmental organizations and the information received that such committees carried out hundreds of visits to places of detention annually. The Committee is concerned at reports that Public Monitoring Committees have encountered obstacles to access that prevent them from carrying out their work owing to their limited mandate, their ability to hold private meetings and that they are not permitted to make unannounced visits. The State party should legally empower members of Public Monitoring Commissions to speak privately with individuals in the detention facilities that they visit to inquire about whether they have experienced torture or ill-treatment and to ensure, in practice, that detainees and prisoners are not subject to reprisals following any communication by them with members of the Public Monitoring Committees. The State should empower the Public Monitoring Committees to undertake unannounced visits to places of detention, hold private meetings and publicize their findings so that the results of monitoring are known and officials can be held accountable for addressing the concerns that they raise. Administration of justice 15. While taking note of the State party’s assertion that the bases of the administration of criminal justice are “adversariality” and “equality of parties”, and that “the issue of permitting defence counsel to collect evidence” is currently being considered, the Committee is concerned at the reported lack of balance between the respective roles of the procurator, the defence counsel and judges. The Committee is particularly concerned about the dominant role of the procurator throughout judicial proceedings and the lack of power of defence lawyers to collect and present evidence, which reportedly results in court 7