CAT/OP/TUR/1 contained in reports that have been made public can be used by the State party as a basis for applying for funding from the Special Fund for specific projects. 13. In addition, in accordance with its mandate, as set forth in article 11 (b) (ii) and (iii) of the Optional Protocol, the Subcommittee will address a separate confidential report to the national preventive mechanism of Turkey. II. National preventive mechanism 14. Turkey ratified the Optional Protocol on 27 September 2011. The State party subsequently designated, by means of a cabinet decree published on 28 January 2014, the then recently established human rights institution of Turkey as its national preventive mechanism. The national human rights institution of Turkey is a public entity with a mandate to protect and promote human rights, including through the reception of individual complaints. The institution is governed by the members of its human rights advisory board and supported by a staff of experts and associate experts. Activities 15. Because Law No. 6332 of 2012 on the human rights institution of Turkey precedes the institution’s reception of its national preventive mechanism mandate, it does not expressly define the institution’s role as a national preventive mechanism. Discussions to revise the law had been ongoing at the time of the Subcommittee’s visit. However, up to that point, no single legislative instrument had outlined the mechanism’s structure, conditions of membership and activities. 16. However, according to practice, a particular anti-torture and mistreatment unit within the human rights institution acts as the national preventive mechanism, with the ability to undertake regular visits to places of detention, to prepare and deliver reports of those visits to relevant authorities and the public, and to examine and evaluate reports of other monitoring bodies. In addition, under the powers of a human rights institution, the anti-torture unit has the authority to request information and documentation from all persons, public agencies and organizations and to establish a committee of imminent persons to conduct on-site examinations and inquiries into matters under its jurisdiction. The mechanism may also make non-binding comments on draft and existing legislation. However, it has not yet produced an annual report and, without a specific legislative text on the mechanism, does not have a legal mandate providing that an annual report should be submitted to Parliament. 17. The Subcommittee notes that the national preventive mechanism is faced with several obstacles hindering the full and effective implementation of its tasks, which this report will address in the next chapter, together with recommendations to the State party. III. Main obstacles faced by the national preventive mechanism 18. While the State party is free to determine the institutional format of its national preventive mechanism, it is imperative that such a mechanism is fully compliant with the Optional Protocol, as reflected in the guidelines on national preventive mechanisms of the Subcommittee.1 It is also crucial that the functional and operational independence of the mechanism are guaranteed, with due consideration to the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles). Legal basis 19. A striking weakness in the current functioning of the national preventive mechanism is the absence of a separate legislative text regulating its functions and its mandate, and providing it with the institutional and operational independence, power and authorities that are set out in part IV of the Optional Protocol and the mechanism guidelines of the 1 4 CAT/OP/12/5.