II.National preventive mechanism A.Legal context and designation process 24.Mexico ratified the Optional Protocol on 11 April 2005. Mexico is a federal State, which entails significant challenges for the implementation of the Optional Protocol. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico, in collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and with advisory services from the international NGO Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), led a consultation process over more than two years concerning the creation of the national preventive mechanism. However, that process did not yield the anticipated results. 25.On 11 July 2007 the National Human Rights Commission accepted the invitation of the Mexican Government to serve as the national preventive mechanism. Accordingly, the Commission’s Advisory Council approved an amendment to article 61 of the Commission’s terms of reference, establishing that the Third Inspectorate-General is responsible for coordinating actions with respect to the national preventive mechanism. To meet this international commitment, the Third Inspectorate-General has strengthened its structure through the creation of a directorate responsible for overseeing the obligations of the national preventive mechanism. 26.The national preventive mechanism was designated by decree. Its work is also governed by a collaborative agreement between the National Human Rights Commission and the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defence, the Navy, Public Security, Health and the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic. The national preventive mechanism has also entered into cooperation agreements with several state human rights commissions in order to improve the mechanisms for visits to states. B.Evaluation 27.During the visit, the delegation met with representatives of the national preventive mechanism, and exchanged information on working and visiting methods and on the national preventive mechanism’s visits to date to places of detention, together with reports of its activities and recommendations. The delegation analysed all the reports provided by the national preventive mechanism, which served as valuable input for the visit. The Subcommittee has communicated its preliminary observations to the national preventive mechanism officially and confidentially. 28.The Subcommittee values the work of the national preventive mechanism and the tremendous effort it has put forth in the short time since its creation. The Subcommittee also notes the measures and activities that the national preventive mechanism intends to implement in the future, in particular the signing of additional institutional agreements with the rest of the state-level human rights commissions and the possibility of forming an advisory council comprising representatives of civil society and individuals versed in the issue of torture prevention. 29.The Subcommittee delegation heard from all the parties involved that the process of establishing the national preventive mechanism in Mexico was not an easy one and that it generated some misunderstandings among the various stakeholders taking part in the discussion of its creation. The Subcommittee understands that the mandate of preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be seen as the work of separate entities with distinct responsibilities, but rather must be viewed as a joint inter-institutional and inter-agency undertaking, bringing together many stakeholders with diverse interests but a single common purpose. The Subcommittee encourages all the government institutions and civil society organizations involved to pool their efforts in order to strengthen the fight against torture through preventive action, from within their respective areas of responsibility and through inter-institutional cooperation. C.Recommendations 30. The national preventive mechanism should be strengthened such that all institutions, civil society organizations and cooperation agencies are working in synergy towards the shared objective of preventing torture. The State should provide the national preventive mechanism with the necessary legal framework and human and material resources and should ensure that it has the autonomy, independence and institutional status needed in order to fulfil its role as envisaged in the Optional Protocol. This includes the hiring of more multidisciplinary staff (psychologists and health professionals, experts in issues relating to indigenous peoples, children and adolescents, women ’ s rights and gender, etc.); the revision and updating of manuals and protocols for visits and procedures, including methodologies for assessing indicators of progress in the prevention of torture; and an ongoing plan for training and awareness-raising on torture prevention aimed at officials with whom persons deprived of their liberty first come into contact. With regard to institutional sustainability and autonomy, the Subcommittee urges the drafting of legislation to consolidate and reinforce the original decree creating the national preventive mechanism. This will provide a stronger framework for the prevention of torture, establishing a national plan that identifies the roles of the various institutions within their respective areas of responsibility, in order to maintain a work agenda with defined commitments and monitoring and periodic evaluations, with visits to places of detention also serving as a means of monitoring progress with regard to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. 31. The Subcommittee, mindful that the establishment of the national preventive mechanism in Mexico marked the start of the process of implementing the Optional Protocol, urges that steps be taken to reinforce the mechanism and ensure its s ustainability, through its own agenda and its own reports, independently of the activities carried out by the Third In spectorate-General within the framework of the National Human Rights Commission. 32. The Subcommittee urges the federal Government and the various state governments to comply with the recommendations issued to date by the national preventive mechanism and with its future recommendations. The State party has an international obligation to do so, as stipulated in articles 22 and 23 of the Optional Protocol , which establish that: “ The competent authorities of the State party concerned shall examine the recommendations of the national