A/65/273 subordinate to relevant ministries, and national human rights institutions, or they allow non-governmental organizations to carry out monitoring visits. In addition, there are independent regional mechanisms such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and international mechanisms such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on torture that can inspect places of detention. 77. In view of the great importance of systematic, independent external monitoring for the prevention of torture, and in response to the shortcomings of the existing mechanisms, the General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture in 2002. The rationale behind the Optional Protocol is based on the experience that torture mainly happens in places of detention, owing to their opaqueness to the outside world and lack of external scrutiny. The Optional Protocol is intended to introduce a shift from a paradigm of opacity, in which detainees are locked away from the outside world and the outside world is kept away from the detainees, to one of transparency. Through the opening up of places of detention, the entire system of detention can be exposed to public scrutiny, made more transparent, and its officials deterred from abusive treatment by being held accountable for their actions. 78. The Optional Protocol takes a two-pillar approach, with the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on the one hand, and national preventive mechanisms in each State party on the other. As the Subcommittee can only sporadically conduct monitoring visits to the increasing number of States parties to the Optional Protocol, the main responsibility for systematic monitoring rests with the national preventive mechanisms. 79. As of July 2010, a total of 54 States, including 8 States visited by the Special Rapporteur, were parties to the Optional Protocol. Of those, 32 States have designated national preventive mechanisms. Given that all the existing national preventive mechanisms are still at an initial stage and have yet to develop their practices, the current phase is absolutely crucial in terms of paving the way for the Optional Protocol to exert its full potential for the prevention of torture. Against this background, a first stocktaking would appear to be instructive in order to identify lessons learned and potential pitfalls in the process of setting up national preventive mechanisms. 80. The Optional Protocol does not prescribe a specific form for national preventive mechanisms but leaves it to States parties how to “maintain, designate or establish … one or several independent national preventive mechanisms”. However, the Optional Protocol and the related Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles) prescribe clear minimum criteria for national preventive mechanisms. Any national preventive mechanism is to be provided with a broad mandate to regularly visit all places of detention with a view to examining the treatment of detainees, to make recommendations to the relevant authorities and to submit draft legislative proposals and observations. It must have unrestricted access, without prior notification, to all places of detention and enjoy the right to hold private interviews with detainees. It must be granted full institutional, functional, personal and financial independence from the State authorities, be pluralistically composed to have the “required capabilities and professional knowledge” and provide for a balanced gender and adequate minority representation. 81. States parties have taken different approaches to establishing a national preventive mechanism in compliance with the Optional Protocol, either designating existing institutions or establishing an entirely new body, both of which have 10-48049 19