A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 161. The OPCAT, in conjunction with the Paris Principles, prescribes minimum standards for the functioning of an NPM.100 A State has to guarantee functional and personal independence, a pluralistic composition, competent staff and adequate resources to ensure its effectiveness. An NPM is granted unrestricted, unsupervised access to all places of detention, the persons detained and all related information; it may conduct private interviews with any person deemed necessary without any reprisals against the source of information; it can make recommendations to the authorities on how to improve the treatment of detainees and can submit legislative proposals and observations. The NPM should be fettered with a broad mandate beyond the minimum competences to function as the main body overseeing the treatment of persons in detention. Besides its evident role as a visiting body, an NPM should closely consult with the Government in improving its legislation and regulations (e.g. reforming the criminal justice system). Furthermore, it should forward any allegations of torture to the authorities responsible for the instigation of criminal proceedings, in order to combat impunity. 162. Despite the obligation to set up an NPM within a year after OPCAT ratification,101 so far only 29 of the 50 States parties have designated an NPM. Of the 15 countries I have visited, only four had an NPM in place. None of the existing NPMs go beyond the minimum standards prescribed by OPCAT. I have regularly emphasized that a lack of independence and restrictions to the NPM seriously impede its function. In Georgia, for example, the NPM was appointed by the President, which does not guarantee its independence.102 At my training visit to Moldova as part of the follow-up to my mission,103 it was reported that the NPM was too close to prison authorities to ensure genuine independence, that its visits were announced and that the interviews carried out were mostly not private.104 Such restrictions and practice of the NPM seriously undermine the purpose of its function. Furthermore, it is of utmost importance that NPMs have the mandate to visit all places of detention and not only prisons. In Paraguay, the interinstitutional commissions set up as visiting bodies (although not yet designated as NPM) did not have the competence to visit police stations, where the risk of torture is highest.105 163. States parties to OPCAT have taken different approaches to meeting the obligation to establish an NPM. A common approach has been the designation of existing Ombudspersons’ offices as the NPM (e.g. Denmark, Uruguay). While this approach is often preferred because it requires less financial and organisational efforts, in practice it bears a number of problems. As noted upon my visit to Denmark, an Ombudsperson’s office can be all too easily designated as NPM without making the necessary legislative amendments and allocating sufficient additional resources for the extension of its mandate. It may consequently suffer from a wide and unspecialized mandate, lack sufficient expertise in torture prevention and adequate staffing, such as the inclusion of health professionals in the visiting teams.106 To overcome some of these shortcomings, a close cooperation with civil society organisations specialized in torture prevention and enjoying the confidence of detainees may be helpful (e.g. Moldova, Slovenia). In the past, some countries have established (e.g. France, Germany, Switzerland) or are considering (e.g. Argentina, Austria, Benin, Honduras, Paraguay) the establishment of a new institution as NPM. When setting 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 42 Articles 18 et seq. OPCAT. Article 17 OPCAT. E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3, para. 39. Training Visit by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Ludwig Boltzmann Institute as part of Follow-Up from July 2008 Mission, and Component of EC/UNDP Project, 13–16 September 2009. Those concerns were shared by the Committee against Torture in its recent Concluding Observations to Moldova’s State report, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2, 19 November 2009, para. 13. A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, para. 28. A/HRC/10/44/Add.2, para. 25.