A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 up a completely new NPM, it is important that States respect and go beyond the minimum standards for its functioning by granting it wide powers and allocating sufficient resources for their extensive functions. For the effective fulfilment of their tasks, good management and coordination of activities are important, especially when the NPM is comprised of several different visiting bodies, as is the case in the United Kingdom, where 18 oversight bodies act as the NPM. In Georgia, the number of visiting bodies was poorly coordinated with differing mandates, no common regular and systematic programme of visits, follow-up or a lack of investigatory powers.107 In Moldova, the legal regulations of the NPM were ambiguous and the lack of clarity as to what constitutes the NPM impeded its effective functioning.108 In all four countries visited with an existing NPM (Denmark, Georgia, Moldova, Uruguay), it appeared to be insufficiently resourced.109 164. I am particularly concerned about the establishment of NPMs that are most obviously not capable of fulfilling their task. In Germany for example, with the highest population in Europe, the federal NPM is comprised of only one unpaid part-time person and a Joint Commission of the federal States (Länder) consisting of four unpaid part-time members, whose combined annual budget is not to exceed 300,000 EUR. This mechanism is evidently unable to ensure complete geographic coverage of all places of detention. Such approach to the implementation of OPCAT is counter-productive since it does not take the problem of torture and ill-treatment in detention seriously and sets a bad example for other States. 165. The ideal model for the designation of an NPM depends on the individual circumstances in the respective State. When setting up an NPM a State party can seek guidance and assistance from the SPT, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, the OHCHR and a number of human rights institutions that have specialized in that field.110 In the past years I have had the opportunity to participate in forums and conduct trainings in several countries to assist the set up of effective NPMs. I have also encouraged donors to focus their support on the establishment of independent NPMs in accordance with OPCAT. 166. Considering the immense potential of visiting bodies for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment in detention, the States parties to OPCAT are called upon to respect and go beyond the minimum standards for the functioning of an NPM. It is desirable that States parties show their unambiguous commitment to the prevention of torture by demonstrating a best practice for other States to follow. They can then set a good example which encourages further States to ratify OPCAT as well as advocate for the effectiveness of the prescribed visiting mechanisms. D. 1. Assisting victims of torture: remedy and reparation The right of victims to an effective remedy and reparation 167. When we focus on the prevention of torture and ill-treatment and the fight against impunity of perpetrators, there is a certain risk that the individual victim and his or her pain, suffering and humiliation go unacknowledged. Throughout the exercise of my mandate, like my predecessors, I have attempted to remind States of their obligation towards the victims of torture and their dependants to provide for an effective remedy and reparation. In 107 108 109 110 E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3, para. 39. CAT/C/MDA/CO/2, para. 13. E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3, para. 39; A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, para. 74; A/HRC/10/44/Add.2, para. 25. A/HRC/13/39/Add .2. E.g. the Association for the Prevention of Torture, The Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (BIM); “The OPCAT Project” at the Law School of the University of Bristol. 43