CAT/OP/DEU/1 31. Members of the Federal Agency are being appointed while those of the Joint Commission are selected by the Ministers of Justice of the States. The current appointment procedure of the NPM members lacks transparency and inclusion as there is little outreach to the public and civil society. Further, the current practice of selecting members to the NPM does not reflect the SPT Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms as the members are not selected through an open, transparent and inclusive process.10 32. The SPT recommends advertising publicly vacant posts within the NPM and consulting civil society organisations and other stakeholders prior to the selection of the members in order to increase the transparency of the process. The SPT also recommends enabling candidates of different backgrounds to be considered for membership in the NPM, in order to increase the likelihood of a variety of professions and experience, including greater gender and ethnic balance and adequate representation of minority groups within the NPM and its visiting teams, in compliance with Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. 33. The composition of the NPM has been a matter of concern. The SPT observed an inadequate in-house medical, psychological and other various expertise such as in the areas of social work, security, pedagogy and children, which limits the NPM capacity to carry out its work effectively. Moreover, the NPM has only occasionally engaged external experts, primarily due to limited resources. 34. The SPT recommends, in the context of selection, expanding the NPM membership to include medical, psychological and other related expertise in order to allow the mechanism to carry out its activities in accordance with the Optional Protocol. The NPM should be adequately resourced to be able to draw on outside expertise, as necessary, to address shortfalls in expertise. 35. To the best of the SPT knowledge, the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission do not submit regularly proposals concerning existing or draft legislation in their capacity as the NPM, in accordance with Article 19 (c) of the Optional Protocol. The reasons for this may be twofold; the lack of a clear legal basis for the NPM to comment on draft laws, and the lack of adequate human resources to engage in such exercises. 36. In accordance with Article 19 (c) of the Optional Protocol, the SPT recommends that the State Party amend the decree of the Federal Ministry of Justice of 20 November 2008 and the State Treaty between the 16 States of 24 June 2009, and other legal acts as relevant, in order to ensure that the NPM can submit proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation related to its mandate. At the same time, the SPT recommends that the State Party allocate the NPM sufficient resources to enable it to fully discharge its mandate in this regard. 37. The SPT is aware of other institutional, structural and legislative constraints to the NPM work, such as the absence of sufficient travel budget and adequate capacity to undertake follow-up visits. The SPT notes that some federal institutions have tried to support the mechanism by providing, for example, logistical support and transportation. While the SPT understands the good intentions of those federal institutions in doing so, such activities could affect the perceived independence of the NPM by making it dependent on the practical support provided by the administration. 38. The SPT recommends that the Federal and State Justice authorities and any other relevant institutions engage proactively with the NPM in order to contribute to the elimination of any current or future legal, structural or institutional constraints. 10 CAT/OP/12/5, para. 16. 7