CAT/OP/ARM/2 cannot publish its own reports, as it was established by and is an adjunct to the Human Rights Defender’s Office. 17. Thus, the national preventive mechanism is de facto based on an “ombudsman plus” model (not de jure, since the involvement of civil society in the work of the mechanism is regulated by order of the Public Defender). The involvement of civil society was further regulated through a memorandum of understanding signed in June 2011 between the Human Rights Defender and seven civil society organizations. 18. As at the end of March 2013, the Expert Council was composed of 11 members (seven NGO representatives, three independent experts with expertise in psychology, sociology and law and one international expert from a European Union advisory group). Members are appointed by the Human Rights Defender. However, as there may be up to 20 members, there are also vacant positions. 19. In February 2012, the order of the Public Defender was amended, as a result of which the Expert Council started to perform its functions totally independently and without administrative support from the Human Rights Defender’s Office. Moreover, under the order of procedure of February 2012, the reports of the Expert Council are to be sent to the Department on the Prevention of Torture and Violence of the Human Rights Defender’s Office for review and possible additions. The reviewed reports are then returned to the Expert Council for adoption. However, the order of procedure clearly indicates that any information received by the Expert Council is at the exclusive disposal of the Human Rights Defender. 20. The amendment to the 2012 order was introduced because no funds were available to pay for the expenses of the members of the Expert Council, who continued to carry out visits in March and April 2012, albeit in a supporting capacity vis-à-vis the national preventive mechanism. In May or June 2012, however, the Expert Council discontinued operations owing to the continued lack of funding. 21. The Subcommittee welcomes the fact that the national preventive mechanism has been operational for more than four years and has conducted numerous visits to various places of deprivation of liberty. III. Recommendations to the national preventive mechanism A. Recommendations relating to the main legal, institutional and structural issues 22. While the Optional Protocol leaves the decision regarding the institutional format of the national preventive mechanism to the State party, it is imperative that the mechanism be structured and that it carry out its mandate in accordance with the Optional Protocol, as reflected in the Subcommittee’s guidelines on national preventive mechanisms. 23. As a general observation, the Subcommittee notes that the national preventive mechanism is an entity distinct from the Human Rights Defender’s Office, not only in terms of its legal framework but also in terms of its functions, its institutional framework and guarantees of independence. The same applies to the members of the Expert Council carrying out mechanism-related activities. 24. The Subcommittee also notes that the current normative deficiencies of the national preventive mechanism, including its lack of a clear mandate, format and structure, generate tensions between the Human Rights Defender’s Office and the Expert Council. The Subcommittee has witnessed the complex interaction between the mechanism and the 4