CAT/OP/PRT/2 as external experts. 10 During the visit the SPT was informed that the NPM was predominantly composed of lawyers. In order to be able to carry out visits under the Optional Protocol the Subcommittee recommends to make the Visiting Team multidisciplinary and to include medical and other experts in the team. 25. Recalling the requirements of Articles 18 (1) and (2) of the Optional Protocol, the Subcommittee recommends to ensure that NPM staff have the diversity of background, capabilities and professional knowledge necessary to enable it to properly fulfil its NPM mandate.11 This should include, inter alia, relevant legal and health-care expertise with a due consideration of gender parity. 26. Recalling that OPCAT article 18 (3) obliges States parties to provide NPMs with the necessary financial and human resources to undertake their work, the SPT reiterates that the NPM shall be provided with a budget sufficient for accomplishing all mandated tasks, in addition to granting the NPM the institutional autonomy to use its resources. This funding should be provided through a separate line in the national annual budget referring specifically to the NPM 12 and not through the general budget of the Ombudsperson. This funding shall be at such a level as to allow the NPM to carry out its visiting programme, to engage outside experts as and when appropriate, to increase its human resources and to regularly access training, in accordance with its own work plan. 27. In order to ensure the functional and operational independence of the NPM and with a view to clearly identify the nature and extent of these additional needs, the NPM has to enter into constructive dialogue with the relevant State authorities in order to ascertain what is needed by the NPM to permit it to properly fulfil its NPM mandate in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol. 28. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism evaluate its financial needs in order to more effectively fulfil its mandate under the Optional Protocol, and that it submit proposals to the governmental authorities concerning its financial needs. The Subcommittee also recommends that the NPM continue to raise with the State party its need for more dedicated staff. B. Recommendations on methodological issues Work plan, reporting and follow-up 29. The Subcommittee notes that the NPM is mainly focusing on detention monitoring activities, and primarily in places under criminal law and less in hospitals and health institutions. Nevertheless this was mentioned as one of the areas that would be given stronger priority, in particular if a broader composition of the visiting team was made possible. Furthermore, although the NMP has the legal competence to submit proposals and observations concerning draft legislation, it has not been involved in commenting on draft legislation. 13 30. The Subcommittee recommends that the NPM has stronger focus not only on visiting places of deprivation of liberty but also on other preventive activities. The Subcommittee further recommends the NPM to develop an annual plan of work which should include all preventive activities, such as commenting on draft legislation, awareness raising and training activities, in accordance with article 19 of the Optional Protocol. 31. While the Subcommittee notes that reports of visits are prepared and presented to the Parliament, it also notes that there is no clear policy concerning the systematic follow-up and 10 11 12 13 http://www.provedorjus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/National_Preventive_Mechanism_Report_to_the_Parliament_2016__E N__0.pdf Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5), para. 20. See Compilation of advice provided to NPMs, (CAT/OP/C/57/4), Part III. NPM assessment matrix for NPMs filled in by the NPM 6