NPMs should not be required to exercise additional mandates that could conflict with or compromise the OPCAT mandate, such as the adjudication of complaints, prosecution or an administrative mandate (such as administration of prisons). Relationship between National Preventive Mechanisms and National Human Rights Institutions Where National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are designated as NPMs, the Subcommittee may recommend that such NPMs operate within them as separate organizational units, with their own discrete Heads exercising operational autonomy. For example, NPMs should not become sections of legal departments, since this would diminish their independence and visibility. Ultimately, the organizational structure should reflect the Optional Protocol’s requirements, including operational autonomy as regards their resources, work plans, findings, recommendations and direct (and, if need be, confidential) contact with the SPT. Coordination between NHRIs and NPMs can be beneficial, given the complementarity of their work. For example, complaints received by NHRIs in relation to a specific place of detention may inform the preventive work of NPMs, while NPMs’ work can also be of value to those engaged in the investigation of complaints or other allegations.32 Relationship between National Preventive Mechanisms and Civil Society Organizations Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play an important role in the prevention, monitoring and combating of torture, and assisting victims in many countries. CSOs comprise different actors, including non-governmental and professional organizations (medical or bar associations, etc.), and communication and collaboration between NPMs and CSOs has been crucial in torture prevention. The SPT recommends that NPMs “establish sustainable lines of communication” with CSOs.33 From the point of view of maintaining impartiality, NPMs should always be careful to preserve their independence. For example, when CSOs invite NPMs to cooperate in projects, NPMs should, if possible, be involved at the planning stage, and prevention should remain at the heart of any joint activity to ensure that NPMs do not exceed their mandate.34 Financial independence States parties have a legal obligation to make a specific allocation of the resources necessary to allow NPMs to function effectively and independently and carry out all OPCAT-related tasks. Financial autonomy is a fundamental prerequisite for independence. The legislation providing for the establishment of NPMs should also include provisions regarding the source and nature of their funding, and specify the process for the allocation of annual funding to the NPMs. The steps in budgetary allocation may be as follows: 1. NPMs draw up their own annual budgets according to their work plan. 2. The global amount of funding under these draft budgets is submitted to the relevant authority and/or the Parliament. If NPMs are established within existing institutions (e.g., Ombudspersons and NHRIs), their budgets should be drafted and submitted separately from those institutions. 3. The heads of the NPMs present their budgets. 32 Compilation of advice by the SPT to NPMs, p. 21. 33 analytical assessment tool, para. 30. 34 Article 18(1) and (3) of the Optional Protocol. 16 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE