CAT/OP/MDA/1 (c) Take steps to ensure that the procedure used for the selection of members is public, transparent and inclusive; with a view to selecting the most qualified and experienced persons. 21. Institutional visibility. The Subcommittee realizes that the NPM is a relatively new institution in the Republic of Moldova. However, it is concerned that authorities in charge of places of detention, persons deprived of liberty and civil society do not perceive the Consultative Council together with the Centre for Human Rights as a single collegial body that constitutes the Moldovan NPM. The Subcommittee is of the view that the lack of visibility and clarity may have a detrimental effect on the efficiency and credibility of the NPM. By way of example, a number of interlocutors with whom the Subcommittee met during the visit conveyed their negative perception of the collaboration between both bodies integrating the NPM and highlighted the lack of transparency about priorities and activities of the NPM as a whole. As a concrete example, there is no distinction when the Centre for Human Rights issues reports or transmits its recommendations/views to the authorities as the Office of the Ombudsman and when it is doing so in its capacity of the NPM. 22. Furthermore, annual reports to the authorities and the Parliament are not being directed on behalf of the collegial body of NPM, but from the Centre for Human Rights. It is also of concern to the Subcommittee that the previous practice of discussion of the annual report of the Centre for Human Rights in the Parliament, in a joint session with the civil society, has lapsed. 23. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party take steps to help position the national preventive mechanism as a key collegial agency in the country’s system for preventing torture and ill-treatment and to contribute to the recognition of its role. That could be achieved, inter alia, by public awareness campaigns and other promotional activities. In addition, it recommends that the State party publish and widely disseminate the Annual Reports of the NPM, including by transmitting them to the Subcommittee. Finally, the Subcommittee recommends that the Annual Reports be presented and discussed in the Parliament. 24. Coordination mechanism. During meetings with the Subcommittee, the representatives of the authorities were unable to provide a concrete example of a recommendation addressed to them by the NPM and/or implemented. This implies that these authorities have not yet entered into a meaningful dialogue with the NPM to address systemic issues and root causes of torture and ill-treatment. That corroborates the views expressed by some members of the NPM that their recommendations to the authorities are “often listened to but rarely heard”, especially when financial resources are required for the implementation. 25. The Subcommittee learned that the Moldovan Government had enacted in November 2008 a law on local monitoring commissions comprised of civil society representatives.6 However, the authorities recognized that, in reality, these commissions are not functional and hardly any of them can be regarded as a truly effective way of prevention of torture and ill-treatment. The Subcommittee is of the view that the proliferation of structures in charge of prevention of torture does not necessarily lead to greater results and, in the absence of coordination, may contribute to inefficient use of available resources and, to some extent, may weaken the NPM mandate. 6 6 The Law on civil control of respect for human rights in institutions which detain persons (No.235); Regulations of the functioning and organization of local civil society monitoring commissions (No.286).