CAT/C/42/2 page 18 70. The SPT considers it essential to revise the original, inappropriate assumptions on which its original budget was based, assumptions which, as the first annual report pointed out, allowed, with certain key omissions, for only four regular visits, lasting ten days each per year and two short follow-up visits of three days each.25 On this basis the SPT would be able to carry out a regular visit to each of the existing 46 State parties once every 12 years. 71. The OPCAT provides for a minimum of two SPT members on a visit. In the original budget assumptions, that minimum had become the maximum; the original budget assumed visits involving only two SPT members, two Secretariat staff members and two external experts. Based on SPT members’ experience and expertise in preventive visiting, the revised SPT proposals are based on the assumption that an average visit would require four SPT members. Two external experts and two Secretariat staff members would, however, be appropriate for most visits. 72. In the summer of 2008, after the SPT had carried out four visits, the United Nations decided that the SPT must be accompanied on all visits by a United Nations security officer and that the cost of this staff member must be met out of the SPT’s budget. The SPT understands the need to consider the security situation during its field work. SPT members are not covered by United Nations insurance when carrying out visits, but, before commencing visits, gained advanced level United Nations security certificates. The SPT notes that certain international preventive mechanisms operating on a regional basis, notably the CPT, carry out visits without a security officer. The SPT is of the view that the need for a security officer should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with due regard to the risks involved and to the budgetary implications. The SPT proposes that this additional cost, not reflected in the assumptions on which the budget for SPT visits was based, be included in all future budgetary provisions. 73. The SPT’s revised proposals also include provision for interpretation on visits, another element missing in the original budget assumptions. It is axiomatic that interpretation is a necessary part of visits to places where people are deprived of their liberty and a major cost factor. The original assumptions in the budget significantly underestimated the actual cost of an SPT visit and would, at best, only apply for a small country without such complicating factors as a federal system or a large custodial population, to name but two factors. 74. The revised proposals address a matter of particular concern to the SPT - the previous lack of specific provision within the regular budget for the SPT’s mandate to work in direct contact with NPMs. In the crucial early phase of the development of NPMs, during which every State party is obliged to designate/establish and/or maintain national preventive mechanisms, the SPT must have the capacity to work with the NPMs. The SPT continues to receive requests to take part in and to provide assistance for activities relating to the development of the NPMs. Such activities have hitherto not been approved for funding by the United Nations. The SPT has endeavoured, as far as possible, to respond positively to such requests with generous support 25 As the SPT is far from visiting most States parties even for the first time, follow-up visits are not a priority at this stage.