CAT/C/40/2 page 10 26. During its three visits during the reporting period, the Subcommittee delegation met with the representatives of the national human rights commissions of Mauritius and the Maldives who had been given tasks with regard to the development of national preventive mechanisms. It also met with the parliamentary ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice of Sweden, designated as national preventive mechanisms. At its third session in November 2007, the Subcommittee met with representatives of the national preventive mechanism of Mexico at its request. 27. Members of the Subcommittee were also involved in a number of meetings, at the national, regional and international levels, concerning the development of national preventive mechanisms. Although there is no provision in the United Nations regular budget for activities related to the national preventive mechanisms, the Subcommittee members consider this part of their mandate so crucial that they have made every effort to be involved through self-funding and/or with generous support, including financial, from the Optional Protocol Contact Group.22 This association of organizations involved in work related to the implementation of the Optional Protocol sponsored the participation of Subcommittee members in a range of important gatherings of key interlocutors and assisted the Subcommittee in its programme of developing working methods (see section V below). B. Preliminary guidelines for the ongoing development of national preventive mechanisms 28. In order to facilitate dialogue with national preventive mechanisms generally, the Subcommittee wishes to indicate some preliminary guidelines concerning the process of establishing those mechanisms, by the development of new or existing bodies, and concerning certain key features of them: (a) The mandate and powers of the national preventive mechanism should be clearly and specifically established in national legislation as a constitutional or legislative text. The broad definition of places of deprivation of liberty, in accordance with the Optional Protocol, shall be reflected in that text; (b) The national preventive mechanism should be established by a public, inclusive and transparent process, including civil society and other actors involved in the prevention of torture; where an existing body is considered for designation as the national preventive mechanism, the matter should be open for debate, involving civil society; (c) The independence of the national preventive mechanism, both actual and perceived, should be fostered by a transparent process of selection and appointment of members who are independent and do not hold a position that could raise questions of conflict of interest; 22 The organisations involved in the OPCAT Contact Group are indicated in annex IX.