CAT/OP/POL/RONPM/1 a department of the office of the ombudsperson; as a result, it does not have a separate, dedicated budget for its work. The Subcommittee observes that there are no explicit provisions in the mechanism legislation regarding earmarked funding. It is also not expressly indicated that the mechanism can accept earmarked donations from external donors. III. Recommendations addressed to the national preventive mechanism A. Recommendations relating to institutional and structural issues 1. Institutional framework and independence 18. The Subcommittee notes that the national preventive mechanism of Poland does not have an identity distinct from the office of the ombudsperson, not only with respect to its own resources but also in relation to its institutional framework and guarantees of independence. While the Optional Protocol does not prescribe a unique structure for a mechanism that is compliant with its provisions, it is imperative that the mechanism be able to carry out its mandate in accordance with the principles of the Optional Protocol, as reflected in the Subcommittee’s guidelines on national preventive mechanisms. 7 19. The Subcommittee emphasizes that the national preventive mechanism should complement rather than replace existing systems of oversight and its establishment should not preclude the creation or operation of other such complementary systems. In this connection, the Subcommittee recommends that necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the mechanism can perform its activities and functions in a clearly differentiated way from those of the rest of the office of the ombudsperson. 20. The Subcommittee also recommends that the mechanism, in close cooperation with the relevant authorities, review the legal framework in which it operates so as to bring it into full conformity with all the relevant international norms and guidelines, with a view to solving existing or potential issues that may hinder the mechanism from carrying out its mandate effectively and independently. In reviewing its framework, the practical needs and the operability of the mechanism also have to be taken into account. Furthermore, enhancing the capacity of the advisory council has to be taken into consideration in order to make the mechanism more autonomous and effective. 2. Human and financial resources 21. The Subcommittee observes that although the office of the ombudsperson has been designated as the national preventive mechanism, sufficient additional resources have not been allocated for this purpose, which presents a major obstacle to the effective and efficient functioning of the mechanism. The Subcommittee is concerned that the necessary resources have not been allocated because the authorities do not consider that the mechanism needs additional resources in order to carry out its mandate effectively. The current budget allocations are correlated with the number of visits undertaken by the mechanism, which has resulted in a spike in the number of visits by the mechanism, leading to a compromise in fulfilling its preventive mandate, whereas the sole function of the mechanism is not merely conducting visits. 22. The Subcommittee stresses that without the proper resources, including in terms of staffing and wider professional competence and expertise, the mechanism cannot fulfil its preventive mandate properly and adequately. These concerns were already raised during the meeting that was held in Geneva on 19 November 2015 between Jerzy Baurski, Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Poland; the head of the Subcommittee regional team for Europe; and the Subcommittee country rapporteur for Poland. 23. The Subcommittee is concerned about the low number of staff assigned to perform mechanism activities. The Subcommittee notes, however, that the limited staff working in the mechanism have a reasonably good understanding of preventive work but are not able 7 CAT/OP/12/5, para. 11. 5