15. The effective operation of an NPM is a continuing obligation. The effectiveness of the NPM should be subject to regular appraisal by both the State and the NPM itself - taking into account the views of the SPT - with a view to its being reinforced and strengthened as and when necessary. ÎÎII. Basic issues regarding the establishment of an NPM A. The identification or creation of the NPM 16. An NPM should be identified through an open, transparent and inclusive process involving a wide range of stakeholders, including Civil Society. This should also apply to the process for the selection and appointment of members of the NPM, which should be in accordance with published criteria. 17. Bearing in mind the requirements of Articles 18 (1) and (2) of the Optional Protocol, members of an NPM should collectively have the expertise and experience necessary for its effective functioning. 18. The State should ensure the independence of an NPM by not appointing to it members who hold positions which could raise questions of conflicts of interest. 19. Members of NPMs should likewise ensure that they do not hold or acquire positions which raise questions of conflict of interest. 20. Recalling the requirements of Articles 18 (1) and (2) of the Optional Protocol, an NPM should ensure that its staff have between them the diversity of background, capabilities and professional knowledge necessary to enable it to properly fulfil its NPM mandate. This should include, inter alia, relevant legal and healthcare expertise. B. Designation and notification 21. An NPM should be established within one year of the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State concerned, unless at the time of ratification a declaration has been made in accordance with Article 24 of the Optional Protocol. 22. The body designated as an NPM should be publicly promulgated as such at national level. 23. The State should notify the SPT promptly of the body which has been designated as an NPM. ÎÎIII. Basic issues regarding the operation of an NPM A. Points for States 24. The State should allow the NPM to visit all, and any suspected, places of deprivation of liberty, as set out in Articles 4 and 29 of the Optional Protocol, which are within its jurisdiction. For these purposes the jurisdiction of the State extends to all those places over which it exercises effective control. 25. The State should ensure that the NPM is able to carry out visits in the manner and with the frequency that the NPM itself decides on. This includes the ability to conduct private interviews with those deprived of liberty and the right to carry out unannounced visits at all times to all places of deprivation of liberty, in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol. 26. The State should ensure that both the members of the NPM and its staff enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions. 27. The State should not order, apply, permit or tolerate any sanction, reprisal or other restriction imposed on any person or organization for having communicated with the NPM or for having provided the NPM with any information, irrespective of its accuracy, and no such person or organization should be prejudiced in any way. 28. The State should inform the NPM of any draft legislation that may be under consideration and which is relevant to its mandate; and it should allow the NPM to make proposals or observations on any existing or draft policy or legislation. The State should take into consideration any proposals or observations on such legislation received from the NPM. 29. The State should publish and widely disseminate the Annual Reports of the NPM. It should also ensure that it is presented to, and discussed in, the national legislative assembly or Parliament. The Annual Reports of the NPM should also be transmitted to the SPT which will arrange for their publication on its website. ANNEXES I 41