CAT/OP/ESP/1 rights of detainees. This law also amended the rules governing incommunicado detention by reducing its duration from 13 to 10 days and introducing safeguards. 11. The Subcommittee wishes to draw the State party’s attention to the Special Fund established under article 26 of the Optional Protocol. Recommendations contained in reports that have been made public can be used by the State party as a basis for applying for funding from the Special Fund for specific projects. II. National preventive mechanism 12. With respect to the question of financial independence, the Subcommittee noted that the national preventive mechanism does not have a budget of its own but, rather, is included in the budget allocated to the Ombudsman. This hinders its efforts to expand its work on the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. If it is not possible to allot the mechanism its own budget, the amount currently being allocated for the performance of its functions should be increased. The Subcommittee’s guidelines on national preventive mechanisms explicitly state that: “[t]he NPM should enjoy complete financial and operational autonomy when carrying out its functions under the Optional Protocol” (CAT/OP/12/5, para. 12). 13. Among the Subcommittee’s various observations on the activities of the national preventive mechanism, it has noted that the mechanism has not managed to establish its own identity as a distinct entity. It appears to have failed to develop a sufficiently effective strategy for carrying out its visits and fostering dialogue in its capacity as the national preventive mechanism or for differentiating itself from the Ombudsman. As a result, it has an extremely low profile in the eyes of persons deprived of their liberty, government authorities and civil society. In most of the centres that the Subcommittee visited, people were not aware of either the mandate or the existence of the national preventive mechanism. 14. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party allocate, as a matter of priority, the financial resources needed by the national preventive mechanism, as required by the Optional Protocol and the Subcommittee’s guidelines for such mechanisms (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 11), and as set out in the national preventive mechanism assessment matrix developed by the Subcommittee. In addition, the State party should consult directly and in a constructive manner with the mechanism with a view to ascertaining the nature and extent of the resources needed for it to properly fulfil its mandate in accordance with the Optional Protocol. III. Legal and institutional framework for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment A. Definition of torture 15. The Subcommittee is concerned that article 174, read in conjunction with article 24 (2), of the Criminal Code still does not fully reflect the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention against Torture. It does not provide for the possibility of the offence’s being committed by a private individual with the “consent or acquiescence” of a public official or include “intimidating or coercing the person or a third person” among the purposes of torture. The Subcommittee is also concerned that a distinction is made between severe and non-severe torture and that the applicable penalties are grossly insufficient for the seriousness of the offence. 16. Although article 607 bis (8) of the Criminal Code recognizes the offence of torture as a crime against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against part or all of the civilian population, this is the only situation where the offence is not subject to limitation under Spanish law. However, the Subcommittee is of the view that no act of torture should be subject to limitation. 4 GE.19-17184