CAT/OP/NLD/1 Moreover, the ability of NPMs to conduct follow up from sending states is more restricted. This has the potential to create a further gap in the torture prevention system in the Netherlands. 42. Finally, it is not clear to the SPT that the NPM sufficiently monitors the situation of detained persons wherever they may be deprived of liberty. Some types of institutions, such as military detention centres, are covered primarily by observers to the NPM, and then not consistently. In addition, the place-based nature of inspecting can miss system-wide problems which require an intersectional approach. It can also fail to monitor instances along the chain of custody, such as transfers and periods of detention immediately after apprehension, where torture and ill-treatment can take place. Further, according to civil society, the work of the CITT, which previously had dual mandates to oversee repatriation policy and to ensure such policy was carried out humanely, is now subsumed by the IVenJ, where the monitoring of repatriation detention can be overshadowed by competing priorities. 43. The SPT recommends that the State party take all necessary measures to ensure the applicability of the OPCAT in the Caribbean Netherlands. Wide application of the OPCAT will enable all persons in the Netherlands to benefit from its provisions and ensure equal protection from torture and ill-treatment throughout the State party. The SPT further recommends that the State party prioritize human rights concerns and the applicability of the OPCAT during ongoing policy reviews about how it wishes to apply legislation in these islands. 44. In cases where a sending State enters into an agreement which allows individuals detained by that State to be held in facilities in the Netherlands, the SPT recommends that the State party provide its NPM the capacity to visit those detainees, as a natural consequence of the NPM’s right to visit all persons deprived of their liberty under the jurisdiction and control of the State party. This is in addition to the SPT’s recommendation that sending States also ensure their NPMs have the legal and practical capacity to visit such detainees. After undertaking such visits, the NPM of the Netherlands should be able to present its recommendations and enter into a preventive dialogue with the authorities of both the sending state and of the State party. 45. Further, the SPT recommends that the State party ensure that all places of detention are included in NPM visits, in accordance with the SPT’s evaluation that all persons deprived of their liberty in a State party are covered by the OPCAT. This includes social care institutions, military detention centres and periods of deprivation of liberty during apprehension, transfer and removal. Resources 46. The Subcommittee is concerned that the NPM lacks capacity to carry out preventive work comprehensively, including visits, advocacy, and public engagement, especially taking into account the need to monitor places of detention in the Caribbean islands. As of December 2013, the IVenJ was composed of 59 staff numbers, ten of whom were involved in NPM-related functions. Of the IGZ’s 537 staff persons, 30 were involved in NPM work. Comparatively, the IJZ devoted 23 of their 47 staff members to NPM-related functions. In addition, the RSJ has 60 members with a range of expertise areas.9 However, the Subcommittee notes that the four institutions comprising the NPM have not been provided with additional funding or human resources to carry out NPM tasks, and the SPT notes that 9 Dutch National Preventive Mechanism, Annual Report 2013, pgs. 24-26, 29. 9