prevention is of particular significance and should be given a clearly identifiable profile, rather than being devolved to an organization or organizations that may have a number of other roles, or whose mandate and structure does not currently fit the requirements for an NPM under the Protocol. It is also notable that in some OSCE participating States that had signed, but not yet ratified the Protocol when the field operations submitted the questionnaires, discussions of the creation of an NPM were going ahead in any event – often in anticipation of this happening. In Montenegro, for example, a working group was established to consider the possible structure of a future NPM, and was being assisted by expert and logistical support provided by the OSCE field operation. In November 2008, the working group proposed that the required legislative amendments be made to the Ombudsman institution with the purpose of designating it as the NPM. Montenegro ratified the OPCAT on 6 March 2009. In another case, concrete discussions regarding an NPM were underway in Kazakhstan even before the signature and ratification of the Optional Protocol, and continue to date. Where field operations have in the past been engaged in the promotion of independent national detention-monitoring mechanisms, it is a natural progression for them to continue such activity in relation to the creation of an OPCAT-compliant monitoring body. This is particularly the case where a country is considering signing or ratifying. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, for example, the field operation has been engaged for some time in supporting the Office of the Ombudsman, which has a mandate to visit places of deprivation of liberty. Having identified shortcomings in the effective investigation of allegations of police abuse in detention, the field operation took a leading role in the creation of an external oversight mechanism for this purpose. In several countries, the Heads of Missions of OSCE field operations have publicly emphasized the importance of signature/ratification of the Protocol or raised the issue with the country’s Ministry of Justice. 4.3 ODIHR: Supporting the implementation of OPCAT As mentioned above, ODIHR has developed a strong focus on supporting the implementation of OPCAT. The Office sees this instrument as vital in the area of criminal justice reform, and it is a key element in its present and future tortureprevention efforts. ODIHR, in conjunction with the OPCAT Project of the Bristol University School of Law, organized a conference in Prague in November 2008 to bring together representatives from government and civil society, national human rights institutions, OSCE field operations and experts from several countries to share their experience on the implementation of OPCAT in the OSCE region. Participants were invited from countries hosting OSCE field operations that have ratified OPCAT, in addition to a number of other OSCE participating States that are party to the Protocol. The meeting focused on the Eastern European, Central Asian and South Caucasus regions. The conference also provided an opportunity for liaison between representatives of several international organizations working in the field of torture prevention, including the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 35