CAT/OP/ECU/2 Ombudsman, should be listened to as a qualified expert body in respect of aspects of title IV of the bill that may affect it directly. 22. The Subcommittee therefore recommends that the national preventive mechanism bring to bear the mandate conferred upon it under article 19 (c) of the Optional Protocol. That article grants the mechanism the power to submit proposals and observations concerning existing draft legislation on prevention. The Subcommittee is of the view that the national preventive mechanism is best placed to comment on title IV of the bill, given the valuable experience that it has acquired since 2011. Status of the national preventive mechanism within the Office of the Ombudsman 23. The Subcommittee is aware that the national preventive mechanism is a new body and that institutional consolidation and capacity -building are still ongoing, including within the Office of the Ombudsman. Structurally, the national preventive mechanism is attached to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Human Rights and Nature within the Directorate-General for Protection of the Office of the Ombudsman. The director of the national preventive mechanism was appointed in January 2014, and this certainly helped to raise the institutional profile of the mechanism. However, the Subcommittee is of the view that the current internal structure of the Office needs to be revisited in order to achieve full compliance with the pr inciple of autonomy enshrined in the Optional Protocol. 24. Firstly, in the current structure, important decisions taken by the national preventive mechanism in fulfilment of its mandate require the approval of the Directorate-General for Protection, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Ombudsman. The Subcommittee is concerned that this procedure may stand in the way of its effectiveness in terms of, for example time management and the autonomy to which the national preventive mechanism is entitled in matters within its area of competence. 25. The Subcommittee recommends that the Office of the Ombudsman enhance the capacity of the national preventive mechanism to act independently, in accordance with article 18 (1) of the Optional Protocol. To this end, the Office o f the Ombudsman and the national preventive mechanism should undertake a joint review of the current internal structure, in the light of the experience gained since 2011, with a view to facilitating the decision-making process of the national preventive mechanism. 26. Secondly, the Subcommittee noted that, in practice, the authorities and civil society representatives often think that the Office of the Ombudsman and the national preventive mechanism are one and the same. This is largely due to the shortcom ings in the mechanism’s legal basis. The Subcommittee notes that, under national law, the prevention of torture falls within the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman is therefore part of the recently established Technical Agency for Social Rehabilitation, as provided for in article 676 of the Comprehensive Criminal Code. However, the Subcommittee believes that the national preventive mechanism’s involvement in the Technical Agency should be such as to reflect its autonomous status within the Office of the Ombudsman, bearing in mind its specific mandate and experience in the area of prevention. The Subcommittee is of the view that, given the Technical Agency’s mandate, namely to “evaluate the effectiveness of policies, administer centres of deprivation of liberty and set standards for the fulfilment of the objectives of the social rehabilitation system” (article 202 of the Constitution), the national preventive mechanism has a very valuable contribution to make. The participation of the national preventive mechanism in meetings of the Technical Agency would also help draw attention to the findings that result from its preventive visits and facilitate the implementation of its recommendations. 8/20 GE.15-11962