Relations between the CPT and National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) Preliminary remarks 27. A system of independent oversight of places where persons are deprived of their liberty is a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment. Consequently, as from the outset of its activities, the CPT has been recommending the establishment of independent national structures able to carry out visits on a regular basis to prisons, police establishments and the like. Indeed, provided they possess the necessary knowledge and powers and are adequately resourced, monitoring mechanisms at national level – be they visiting boards, Ombudsman offices or similar entities – can intervene more frequently, and more rapidly, than any international body. 28. The entry into force, in June 2006, of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) created a fresh perspective regarding the monitoring of places of detention and the prevention of torture. First, this treaty established a new independent international monitoring mechanism, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), with very similar powers to the CPT but at universal level. It is incumbent on the CPT and the SPT to seize all opportunities for cooperation and the sharing of know-how, and in this regard there are regular exchanges of views between the two bodies and their respective secretariats. 29. However, another aspect of the OPCAT, the so-called “second pillar”, is arguably even more significant. States adhering to the Optional Protocol are obliged to provide at the domestic level for national preventive mechanisms (NPMs) possessing extensive monitoring powers in relation to places of detention. In the European context, 31 member States of the Council of Europe have already ratified the OPCAT and to date 25 countries have set up or designated an NPM, a development which is in line with the CPT’s longstanding recommendation referred to above. And it is now standard practice for the Committee to expressly encourage those States which have not already done so to ratify the OPCAT and set up an NPM. The NPMs are natural part­ ners for the CPT. In fact, the effectiveness of efforts to assist States in Europe to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment will in future depend to a large extent on the quality of the interaction between the Committee and these mechanisms. 30. In the following paragraphs, the CPT sets out some provisional thoughts on how it sees its future relations with NPMs and, more specifically, on the means of promoting synergy between the Committee and these emerging actors at national level. The CPT would welcome comments on this section of its General Report. 15