A/65/273 84. The provision of inadequate resources has an effect on the capabilities and professional knowledge required by article 18, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. A pluralistic composition cannot be ensured by a national preventive mechanism body that consists of only one member, as is the case in Germany. In contrast, the French national preventive mechanism has 14 full-time inspectors and can call on an additional 14 inspectors to take part in specific missions, thereby facilitating the participation of persons from various educational and professional backgrounds. Small national preventive mechanisms with only a few members have to largely rely on the expertise of ad hoc members or external experts for the effective performance of monitoring visits. In practice, this can create difficulties, including in regard to their availability. Therefore, some States, for example the Czech Republic, Denmark, Luxembourg and Slovenia, have entered into cooperation agreements with relevant civil society organizations in order to ensure external support for their national preventive mechanisms. 85. In order for national preventive mechanisms to carry out their functions effectively, they must have a clear understanding of their tasks and roles. Particular problems can arise for a national preventive mechanism that functions within a previously existing institution such as a national human rights institution, for a national preventive mechanism composed of several bodies and for a national preventive mechanism that cooperates institutionally with civil society organizations. Those models all require a particular effort of planning and coordination and a clarification of the exact roles and tasks within the institution. In national human rights institutions designated as national preventive mechanisms, the roles of the members of the national preventive mechanism and the staff of the national human rights institution may not always be clear and the different tasks of the national human rights institution may impede the effective and autonomous functioning of the national preventive mechanism. Therefore, it is recommended that national human rights institutions designated as national preventive mechanisms create separate units or departments where employees are explicitly and fully assigned for the performance of the tasks of the national preventive mechanism, as in Costa Rica, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mexico and Spain. The units should have an autonomous agenda and programme of action, and their own staff and budget. Concerning the designation of several existing institutions as national preventive mechanisms, as in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, adequate coordination of the work of the bodies is necessary in order for them to function effectively and coherently. An equal need for coordination and coherence arises in cases where national preventive mechanisms cooperate institutionally with non-governmental organizations, as in the Republic of Moldova and Slovenia. In the Republic of Moldova, their institutional involvement has led to a serious internal conflict over the competences and roles of the different members. Additionally, there is a risk of the dilution of their mandates for non-governmental organizations and of a loss of independence and credibility for the national preventive mechanism if the division of tasks is unclear. 86. The setting up of a national preventive mechanism requires a careful preparatory process that is to be “public, inclusive and transparent”, including civil society and all other actors involved in the prevention of torture, as in Honduras and Paraguay. A transparent and inclusive preparatory process creates greater public attention for the future national preventive mechanism, ensuring its credibility, and may prevent problems after its designation. Many States seek assistance from 10-48049 21