GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORK OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY it had previously been lacking such expertise. The four new members of the Joint Commission took up their work on 1 January 2015. At the same time the Federal Government and the Länder agreed to increase the National Agency’s budget. From 2015, therefore, it will have a total budget of EUR 540,000. In order to be able to cope with the additional workload, the Secretariat will be hiring another full-time member of staff in 2015. The National Agency feels that the increase in budgetary and personnel resources is an important step towards creating a preventive mechanism which is able to meet the requirements set out in the OPCAT. 3 – THE NATIONAL AGENCY IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT The National Agency is Germany’s national preventive mechanism pursuant to Article 3 of the OPCAT. Each State Party to the OPCAT must establish such a mechanism, and it may comprise one or several facilities. As at 30 April 2015, the OPCAT had 95 signatory states and had been ratified by 77 states, including all the Member States of the Council of Europe, with the exception of Andorra, Belgium, Island, Ireland, Latvia, Russia, San Marino and Slovakia. Of these 77 States Parties, 61 have already designated a national preventive mechanism based on one of three models: Under one model, the remits of existing ombuds institutions were extended to include the prevention of torture (e.g. in Sweden, Austria and Spain); secondly, various existing monitoring mechanisms were combined to create a national preventive mechanism (e.g. in the United Kingdom); a third group of states, including France, Switzerland and Germany, established new national preventive mechanisms. A preventive mechanism was also set up at the United Nations, namely the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT). It comprises 25 members which are nominated and elected by the States Parties. Since 2012 the SPT has shared out its regional competences amongst its members. The SPT may visit the States Parties for two reasons: First, like the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), it can visit places of detention in the States Parties with the aim of making recommendations regarding protecting people deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. To that end it essentially has the same powers as the national preventive mechanisms. Second, it may also conduct visits to support the States Parties in setting up their national preventive mechanisms and to offer training and technical assistance. It made such a visit to Germany in April 2013. Representatives of the National Agency were involved in various international activities in the period under review. For example, a member of the Joint Commission gave a presentation on the work and structure of the National Agency during a seminar on “Measures to Improve Prison Conditions at EU Level” held at the Academy of European Law in Trier on 13/14 February 2014. On 19/20 May 2014 a member of the Joint Commission took part in the conference of the heads of prison training colleges in Austria, Switzerland and Germany, which was held in Vienna. The conference dealt, amongst other things, with cooperation between German prison training colleges and the Joint Commission in regard to prison staff training and development. 3.1 – MEETING OF PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS IN THE GERMANSPEAKING COUNTRIES The National Agency and the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection invited representatives of the Ombuds Board of Austria and of the Swiss National Commission for the Prevention of Torture to a meeting in Berlin on 3/4 April 2014 to discuss experience and with the aim of establishing closer cooperation between the three preventive mechanisms. During the two-day meeting the three organisations first shared information about the legal and practical framework for their work. Together with representatives from the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection they also discussed the dilemma arising on account of the independence of the national preventive mechanisms on the one hand and their need to cooperate with public authorities on the other. Those taking part also shared experiences gained in applying their various methodologies during visits, following up on the implementation of their recommendations and continuing training for their members and employees. Other areas they addressed included monitoring pre-deportation detention facilities and forced returns by air and visiting residential care homes and nursing homes for the elderly. All 12