4. NPMs are entitled to determine their own spending priorities within their overall allocated budgets. Bearing in mind the requirement for independence, NPMs should also be free to raise funds from other sources such as private or foreign donor agencies. Such funds should not disqualify the institutions from receiving public funds; on the contrary, governments that create such institutions have a continuing legal obligation to fund them. ÎÎMEMBERSHIP Expertise and independence The members of NPMs shall collectively have the expertise and experience necessary for the effective functioning of such mechanisms.35 Their teams should embody a diversity of professional backgrounds and experience,36 as well as take into account gender balance and representation of ethnic, minority and indigenous groups.37 Relevant expertise includes legal, medical, psychological, child-related and gender expertise, and any other related expertise so as to allow NPMs to carry out their activities in accordance with the Optional Protocol, in an informed and inter-disciplinary fashion. NPMs should choose their own staff without external interference. Their staff should have relevant expertise and experience, including legal and health-care expertise, and the diversity of background, capability and professional knowledge necessary to enable NPMs to fulfil their mandates. In order to cover any shortages in human resources or gaps in expertise, NPMs should be able to engage external expertise, consider setting up internship programmes, or partner with universities and civil society or similar institutions such as social care homes. Members should be personally and institutionally independent of State authorities. They should not hold positions or have personal connections that would entail a real or perceived conflict of interest when undertaking the mandates of NPMs. For example, prosecutors, prison professionals, persons with political affiliations or close personal relations with governments, as well as judges or defence attorneys, may run into such real or perceived conflicts of interest and would therefore be unsuitable for membership of NPMs. The terms of office, which may be renewable, should be sufficient to foster the independent functioning of NPMs, including security of tenure and appropriate remuneration, to attract persons with accumulated experience in the field of prevention of torture, and to build up institutional knowledge. For example, some States favour a five-year period of office, which may be sufficient to allow members to be effective but not be overly concerned about their future prospects.38 Others favour longer terms that are fixed and non-renewable. The positions should be adequately remunerated. NPMs should also have exclusive authority to develop their own rules of procedure in order to ensure their operational autonomy. RULES OF PROCEDURE should address the following issues: uuBudgets for all activities uuDecision-making processes 35 Article 18(2) of the Optional Protocol. 36 See, for example, SPT visit report Sweden (CAT/OP/SWE/1), 2008, para. 36. 37 Article 18(2) of the Optional Protocol. 38 See, also, Assessing Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions, p. 12 (OHCHR, International Council on Human Rights Policy, 2005). KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM I 17