understanding of the Mobile Monitoring Groups’ role by local NGOs, limited cooperation between local Interior Ministry structures and civil society, and diverse views on the functioning of the Groups in different regions. The establishment of the Mobile Monitoring Group system was carried out in a comprehensive manner, including the provision of training and a code of conduct for independent visitors, reform of the legal framework for the activities of the Groups, and standardized reporting. This system provides a good example of integrated action between civil society and the Interior Ministry. Notably, the system is focused on detention facilities operated by the police, a notoriously difficult area to tackle and one where torture is often prevalent. Part of the inspiration for the Monitoring Group system in Ukraine came from practice in the United Kingdom, following a study visit there by Ukrainian officials and Group members. This example demonstrates the value of sharing experience between OSCE participating States. The development of the Mobile Monitoring Groups in Ukraine has been an evolving process, with several amendments made to the legal framework as their work developed and a national policy to combat torture having been elucidated. 34 The mandate of the Monitoring Groups is continually expanding, and they were recently granted the right to visit detention facilities at night and conduct confidential interviews with detainees. At the time of writing, a comprehensive NPM with a mandate to visit all places of deprivation of liberty was not yet in existence. However, discussions on the development of an NPM and expanding monitoring to include prisons and specialized medical and asylum facilities for refugees and those seeking asylum are ongoing. In the Czech Republic, the existing Ombudsman institution – the Office of the Public Defender of Rights – was designated as the NPM because of its institutional and financial independence, previous experience in detention monitoring and the authority it enjoys. Legislative changes introduced in 2006 made the Public Defender’s Office eligible for this task. A special department within Office was established, composed of 12 lawyers and several independent experts, including doctors, nurses, psychologists and psychiatrists. Visits to de jure facilities, such as prisons and holding cells, and to de facto facilities are made systematically according to a half-yearly plan. Moldova provides an example of an NPM that unites the forces of the Ombudsman and civil society. Initially, the Ombudsman office was selected as the sole body responsible for NPM functions under OPCAT. After lobbying from civil society, the government introduced a law specifying that the Ombudsman office should carry out its mandate in co-operation with civil society. It also took the initiative of creating an 11 person Consultative Council, comprising ten NGO representatives and the Ombudsman as chair. The Moldovan model is an example of the pooling of the expertise and resources of NGOs and the Ombudsman office. As part of an ongoing process, however, a number of additional measures were mentioned as necessary to guarantee the full independence and effectiveness of the body. Particular stress was placed on the 34 “Concept of the State Policy on Preventing Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, as developed by the Ukrainian Presidential National Commission for Strengthening Democracy and the Rule of Law. The related Presidential Decree had yet to be signed as of June 2009. 40