CAT/OP/NZL/1 II. National preventive mechanism 11. New Zealand ratified the Optional Protocol in 2007 and in fulfilment of article 3, the amendment bill to the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 designated five existing institutions as its national preventive mechanism. They are the Ombudsman’s Office, the Independent Police Conduct Authority, the Children’s Commissioner and the Inspector of Service Penal Establishments of the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces. The Human Rights Commission has a coordinating role. While the legislative framework is reflective of the criteria in the Optional Protocol, the practical efficiency of the mechanism remains a challenge. Resources and independence 12. The Subcommittee delegation spent a day with the national preventive mechanism and was pleased to hear that it enjoyed good overall relations with the authorities. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee is of the view that the situation regarding the mechanism within the State party has reached a critical point. Since their designation, most of its component bodies have not received extra resources to carry out their mandate under the Optional Protocol, which, together with general staff shortages, has severely impeded their ability to do so. Moreover, the Children’s Commissioner and the Independent Police Conduct Authority reported that their funding was earmarked for statutory functions, which excluded work related to the national preventive mechanism. In that regard, the Subcommittee was concerned to learn that the mandate under the Optional Protocol — an international obligation — was not considered by the State party to be a core function of the bodies designated as the national preventive mechanism. The Subcommittee is also concerned that inadequate funding might be used, or might be perceived by the bodies themselves as being used, to pressurize components of the mechanism to sacrifice their work related to the Optional Protocol in favour of other functions. Should the current lack of human and financial resources available to the mechanism not be remedied without delay, the State party will inevitably find itself in the breach of its obligations under the Optional Protocol. Staffing 13. While the Subcommittee was impressed by the commitment and professionalism of the experts of the national preventive mechanism, it was concerned that the number of staff was inadequate, given the large numbers of places of detention within their mandates. It was also concerned at the lack of expertise in medical and mental health issues. 14. The Subcommittee reminds the State party that the provision of adequate financial and human resources constitutes an ongoing legal obligation under article18(3) of the Optional Protocol. It recommends that the State party: (a) Ensure that the bodies of the national preventive mechanism enjoy complete financial and operational autonomy when carrying out their functions 4 and that they are able to freely determine how to use the resources available to them; (b) As a matter of priority, increase the funding available in order to allow the bodies of the national preventive mechanism to implement effectively their mandate throughout the country; (c) Ensure that the national preventive mechanism is staffed with an adequate number of personnel, in order to ensure that its capacity reflects the number 4 4 See Subcommittee guidelines on national preventive mechanisms, CAT/OP/12/5, para. 12.