Recommendations (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3) Situation during visit (See: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3) Steps taken in previous years (See: A/HRC/4/33/Add.2, A/HRC/7/3/Add.2 and A/HRC/16/52/Add.2) their members are recruited and appointed by the Ministry of Justice. Several NGOs have been deprived of the possibility to have their representatives in these commissions. 83 A/HRC/19/61/Add.3 Information received in the reporting period had a number of adverse effects to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. The former relative transparency of the Georgian prison system has been abandoned and human rights defenders reportedly no longer have any first-hand Government: The 1996 Organic Law of information of the situation of detainees the Public Defender of Georgia was but only get this information through amended by Parliament on 16 July 2009 defence lawyers. and now provides for the following: (1) According to the legal provisions The Office of the Public Defender (PDO) establishing the NPM, the Public Defender was officially designated as a National can be assisted by a group of civil society Preventive Mechanism (article 31 (1)), experts, the so-called ―Special Preventive being expressly obliged to cooperate with Group‖, in carrying out the NPM mandate. all relevant international human rights The current Public Defender has bodies/institutions in line with the NPM established a roster of 22 civil society mandate and creation of the National experts after issuing an open call for Preventive Group (article 31 (3 )); (2) applications. However, the legal Adequate resources to be provided for provisions relating to the inclusion of civil carrying out its mandate (article 31 (2)); society experts in the NPM were (3) Unimpeded access to all places of reportedly criticized due to the lack of detention, access to relevant information clarity. On the one hand, the terminology and right to conduct private interviews ―can be assisted‖ leaves the door open to a (article 19 (1) and (2)); Confidentiality lot of discretion for the Public Defender criteria: respect towards and could, in principle, be interpreted in a confidential/private data of detainees manner that civil society experts are (article 19 (3)); (4) Expertise and completely excluded from the NPM; on professionalism of the members of the the other hand, the selection of civil National Preventive Group; (article 191 society members was not considered to (2)); (5) Right to make recommendations, have been entirely transparent and including the presentation of the NPM objective. report before the Parliament of Georgia (article 21); and (6) Privileges for the members of the National Preventive Group: they have a right withhold giving