CAT/OP/NLD/1/Add.1 consequently, the relevant provisions of Belgian and Norwegian law apply to sentences enforced within these institutions. Decisions on such matters as the prison regime and the legal status of the prisoners are made on the basis of Belgian or Norwegian law, as the case may be. 21. This is different from the situation in which responsibility for enforcing sentences is transferred to another country. Under the arrangements at issue here, the Netherlands does not assume responsibility for the enforcement of sentences from Belgium or Norway. This remains the express responsibility of the other State concerned. Moreover, each prison is managed by a Belgian or Norwegian governor, under whose direction and responsibility Dutch staff carry out the day-to-day tasks associated with the enforcement of Belgian and Norwegian sentences. Therefore, in line with the relevant treaties, Dutch legislation is not applicable to detention following the enforcement of Belgian and Norwegian prison sentences in prisons on Dutch territory. In those instances, the legal basis for detention is the Belgian or Norwegian sentence. Article 4 of the OPCAT compels the States parties to allow visits “to any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty”. This does not apply to detention facilities rented out by the Dutch government to Belgium and Norway. 22. Naturally, the enforcement of Belgian and Norwegian sentences in the Netherlands can be permitted only if observance of fundamental human rights is guaranteed and there is adequate monitoring. That is indeed the case. Belgium and Norway are party to all relevant human rights conventions, and human rights also enjoy statutory and constitutional protection in both countries. In consequence, the competent Belgian and Norwegian monitoring authorities and other bodies can perform all their tasks and fully exercise their powers in relation to persons in custody in Dutch territory. The treaties with Norway and Belgium explicitly provide that persons in custody may apply to their competent national authorities to lodge complaints or pursue legal actions. This ensures that the legal protection applicable to individuals held in prisons in those countries also applies to persons in custody in the Netherlands. 23. It follows that the Dutch NPM is not competent to advise the Belgian and Norwegian authorities or make recommendations to them. As a party to the OPCAT, Norway has its own national preventive mechanism, which is authorised under article 4(1) of the OPCAT to monitor the enforcement of Norwegian judgments in the Netherlands. Although Belgium has not yet ratified the OPCAT, it is a party to the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In that context, the Dutch prison leased to Belgium was visited by the CPT in October 2011. Military facilities 24. The monitoring of all locations used and managed by the Royal Military and Border Police (KMar) for the purpose of holding individuals in detention is regulated in the KMar Custodial Institutions Supervisory Committee Order. The Committee’s task is to monitor the treatment of persons held in military detention centres and the enforcement of the custody rules in such institutions. The Committee may, either on request or on its own initiative, make recommendations for improvements and provide information to the Minister of Defence. B. Comments and recommendations — financial position 25. The Subcommittee recommends that the NPM be given the financial resources and human resources it requires, over and above the existing budgets of the individual NPM members. 6