CAT/OP/MDA/1 26. Moreover, the Subcommittee is concerned about the absence of an established coordination mechanism between and among different State party’s entities working in the field of prevention of torture, such as the State apparatus of judicial oversight, the General Prosecutor Office, relevant Ministries, Local Commissions on one hand and the NPM on the other. The Subcommittee wishes to stress that an absence of platform for coordination could be an indicator of a lack of coherent and well defined national strategy to prevent torture and ill-treatment. 27. The Subcommittee is of the view that only collaborative work could lessen the likelihood of torture and ill-treatment, as it will establish mutually reinforcing means of oversight and avoid duplication of efforts. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party establish coordination among relevant entities and institutions, in order to ensure the effective implementation of the national strategy to prevent torture and the proper functioning of the NPM. Furthermore, as it is called for in article 22 of the OPCAT, the competent authorities of the State party shall examine the recommendations of the NPM and enter into a meaningful dialogue with it on possible implementation measures. In this connection, a focal point could be named in each of or for all the relevant ministries to follow up on the implementation of the NPM’s recommendations and to report to the mechanism in that regard. IV. Reform of the national preventive mechanism 28. Although the Optional Protocol leaves it up to the State Party’s discretion in which institutional format the NPM should be set up, the Protocol is axiomatic that the NPM must be structured in a manner which fully reflects its provisions. The Subcommittee is encouraged by the opportunity for real improvement which now presents itself with the draft law on Parliamentary Advocates and, in particular, Chapter IV dedicated to the work of the NPM. In this connection, the Subcommittee commends the State party for conveying and coordinating the Working Group on the amendments to the legislative framework of the NPM, which includes a significant number of national and international experts, as well as the representatives of different Ministries and civil society. 29. The present remarks were formulated after the Subcommittee’s visit to the country and on the basis of the document provided by the Ministry of Justice on 4 October 2012 (Annex III). These remarks should be considered in addition to the previous comments made by the Subcommittee in Chapters II and III of the present report. 30. The Subcommittee welcomes the draft amendments contained in articles 48.2 and 45.1, providing for a separate budget of the NPM and involving the Parliamentary Human Rights Commission into the election procedure of the NPM members respectively. 31. Having said that, the Subcommittee believes that a number of changes have to be made, in order to bring the present draft law in full conformity with the Optional Protocol: (a) Principles of impartiality, objectivity and confidentiality of the Council’s work have to be introduced in the text; (b) Criteria for selection of Council’s members by the Parliamentary Commission for Human Rights have to be further developed, either in the text of the draft law or in the separate document of Rules of Procedure; (c) Additional clause on incompatibilities and conflict of interests should be introduced in the law or regulated by Rules of Procedure; 7