CAT/OP/ECU/2 Pursuant to article 18 of the Optional Protocol, the State must guarantee the functional independence of the national preventive mechanism as well as the independence of its staff. It should also make available the necessary re sources for the functioning of the mechanism. In addition, paragraph 32 of the Guidelines stipulates that where the body designated as the national preventive mechanism performs other functions in addition to those provided for under the Optional Protocol, its national preventive mechanism functions should be located within a separate unit or department that has its own staff and budget. Bearing this in mind, the bill could make explicit mention of the fact that the Office of the Ombudsman, in its role as the national preventive mechanism, enjoys functional independence and financial autonomy; acts independently and without interference from State authorities; and is empowered to decide upon its own programme of work, designate staff and decide how the budge t allocated to it is to be used. With regard to this last point, the Subcommittee notes that the budgetary matters are not specifically addressed in the bill. Bearing in mind the fact that fulfilling the functions of the national preventive mechanism repre sents an additional task for the Office of the Ombudsman, the Subcommittee deems it important, in accordance with article 18.3 of the Optional Protocol, to specify in the bill that the Office of the Ombudsman will be allocated sufficient additional resources to enable it to fulfil its functions as the national preventive mechanism. In order to draw a clear distinction between the functions of the national preventive mechanism and other functions of the Office of the Ombudsman, and given the special nature of the former inasmuch as they are derived directly from the mandate set forth in the Optional Protocol, the Subcommittee is of the view that, in articles 56 (obligations of centres of deprivation of liberty) and 57 (visits to centres of deprivation of liberty), the reference to “the Office of the Ombudsman” should be replaced by a reference to “the national preventive mechanism”. The Subcommittee is concerned that the bill, as currently worded, does not ensure the visibility of the national preventive mech anism as a key player in the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. There is also the danger that the preventive mandate of the national preventive mechanism could become intertwined with or diluted by other functions of the Office of the Ombudsman, such as the reception and investigation of individual complaints. Article 22 of the Optional Protocol provides that the competent authorities shall examine the recommendations of the national preventive mechanism and enter into a dialogue with it on possible implementation measures. A similar provision is contained in paragraph 13 of the Subcommittee ’s Guidelines. The Subcommittee believes that the bill should make explicit mention of this obligation in order to lay the foundations for a regulated, effective procedure for follow-up to recommendations made by the national preventive mechanism. With regard to article 55 of the bill, which deals with coordination and cooperation with other bodies, the Subcommittee deems it advisable to add an explicit reference to the right of the national preventive mechanism to have contact with the Subcommittee, to send it information and to meet with it, as provided for in article 20 (f) of the Optional Protocol. Article 23 of the Optional Protocol sets forth the obligation of the State to publish and disseminate the annual reports of the national preventive mechanism. In connection with this obligation, paragraph 29 of the Guidelines provides that the State should ensure that the reports are presented to, and discussed in, the national legislative assembly. The Subcommittee believes that mention of these obligations should be made in the bill. 6/20 GE.15-11962