CAT/OP/POL/ROSP/1 of Poland did not allocate the resources necessary for the execution of tasks related to the proper implementation of the Optional Protocol.8 17. The Subcommittee further notes that the mandate of the mechanism is not clearly separated from the rest of the mandate in the office of the ombudsperson. The mechanism is a department of the office of the ombudsperson; as a result, it does not have a dedicated separate budget for its work. The Subcommittee observes that there are no explicit provisions in the mechanism legislation regarding earmarked funding. It is not clear whether the mechanism can accept earmarked donations from external donors. 18. The Subcommittee is concerned that a lack of financial resources presents a major obstacle to the effective and efficient functioning of the mechanism. The Subcommittee is further concerned that the failure to allocate necessary resources seems to be due to the fact that government authorities do not feel that the mechanism needs additional support to carry out its mandate effectively. This is a serious misconception, which needs to be addressed urgently. 19. The Subcommittee reminds the State party that, pursuant to the Optional Protocol, States parties are required to make available the necessary resources for the functioning of the national preventive mechanism. Without proper resources, including for staffing and wider professional competence and expertise, the mechanism cannot fulfil its preventive mandate properly and adequately. 20. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party allocate, as a matter of priority, the financial resources needed by the mechanism, as required by article 18 (3) of the Optional Protocol and the Subcommittee’s guidelines on national preventive mechanisms.9 If the mechanism is to have functional independence, it must have full control over its staff and not be dependent on the decisions of other bodies. 21. The Subcommittee recommends that this funding be provided through a separate line in the national annual budget referring specifically to the mechanism, as advised by the Subcommittee in its response to mechanism requests. 10 It also recommends that this funding be at such a level as to allow the mechanism to carry out its visiting programme, hire its own human resources, engage outside experts and regularly participate in training programmes, as well as other preventive activities. In this regard the funding should not be tied to the number of visits carried out by the mechanism because the mechanism is expected to undertake other preventive activities as mentioned in paragraph 28 below. 22. The Subcommittee emphasizes that the 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. 11 In this connection the Subcommittee recommends the State party in close cooperation with the mechanism to review the legal framework in which the mechanism operates and bring it into full conformity with all relevant international norms and guidelines with a view to solving existing or potential issues that may hinder the mechanism in carrying out its mandate effectively and independently. 23. The Subcommittee reminds the State party that, in order for the mechanism to fulfil its mandate effectively, it should have a separate secretariat and its own staff. In addition, the mechanism should have recourse to external experts, including medical experts, as necessary, when such expertise is not available internally. 24. In order to ensure the functional and operational independence of the mechanism and with a view to clearly identifying the nature and extent of these additional needs, the State party should consult the mechanism directly, in order to ascertain what the mechanism needs to permit it to properly fulfil its mandate in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol. 8 9 10 11 Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection, “Report of the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection on the activities of the national preventive mechanism in Poland in 2008”, p. 16. CAT/OP/12/5, para. 11. CAT/C/57/4, annex, paras. 11–14. CAT/OP/12/5, para. 5. 5