16 MONITORING OF CUSTODIAL SETTINGS IN UKRAINE officially recorded and signed by the Chairman of the Commission. Such decisions have the status of recommendations and may be communicated for consideration to the public authorities and organizations represented in the Commission. Organizational and technical support of the Commission’s operation is provided by Administration of the President of Ukraine and by the State Executive Office. However, analysis of the Regulation on the Commission with regard to its conformity with OPCAT requirements shows that the Commission was not a self-sufficient NPM, mostly for the following reasons: 1. The Commission was established by an edict and not by a law. A presidential edict is a regulatory act of high standing but OPCAT recommends to institute NPMs by law as the highest statute. The particular issue is that the Commission members’ powers to visit some custodial settings, like preliminary detention facilities or penitentiaries, may clash with the respective laws that regulate the procedure of such visits and supersede other regulations. 2. The Commission has a consultative and advisory status, and the meetings are the main form of its operation. Thus, the Commission is not an independent authority primarily assigned to conduct regular visits of custodial settings. 3. The Commission has no own full-time staff: all members of the Commission, including its Chairman and executive secretary, perform without any remuneration. 4. The Commission does not have a budget under a separate line item but is financed within the scope of funding of the Administration of the President of Ukraine and the State Executive Office. In 2012 the Commission held two working meetings where, among other matters, it discussed the possible models of custodial settings visiting. The Commission members were also engaged into the working group for expert assessment of the possible models of NPM; this group also included experts from the Council of Europe, Ministry of Justice and Administration of the President of Ukraine. On completion of its assignment the working group came to the conclusion that the format known as “Ombudsman +” is the NPM model most suitable to the Ukrainian realities. The experts also suggested their proposals on the relevant amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights” that were forwarded to the Presidential Administration for