CAT/OP/MKD/2 11. The designation of the Ombudsman as its national preventive mechanism and the creation of the national preventive mechanism unit within the Office of the Ombudsman were not accompanied by any additional financial or human resources. 1 At the time of the mission, the mechanism consisted of the head of the mechanism, one core staff member and four consultants funded by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 12. The national preventive mechanism issues reports and recommendations following each visit to a place of detention and also conducts follow-up visits to assess the level of implementation of its recommendations. An annual report, including its recommendations, is published in Macedonian, Albanian and English and is sent to the Government, and presented by the Ombudsman to and discussed in the parliamentary assembly. The recommendations are also discussed with the relevant ministries, including the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The mechanism also presents comments and suggestions to the ministries concerning pertinent legislation. While the recommendations of the mechanism are generally welcomed by the governmental authorities, implementation appears to be limited. 13. Despite the shortage of staff and resources, the national preventive mechanism has been able to undertake a significant number of visits to places of detention each year since its establishment, ranging from 25 in 2012 to 7 regular visits in 2015. Since 2012, it has undertaken follow-up visits in order to assess the practical implementation of its previous recommendations. It has also visited a wide range of places of deprivation of liberty, such as educational-corrective institutions, police stations, penitentiary facilities, transit centres for migrants and asylum seekers, psychiatric hospitals and institutions for persons with disabilities. III. Recommendations to the national preventive mechanism A. Recommendations relating to legal, institutional and structural issues Structure and independence 14. As a general observation, the Subcommittee notes that the national preventive mechanism could benefit from an identity that is more distinct from that of the Ombudsman in relation to its functions, its institutional framework and guarantees of independence. 15. In particular, the Subcommittee is concerned about the lack of functional independence of the national preventive mechanism within the Office of the Ombudsman. While the Optional Protocol does not provide for a single model of a national preventive mechanism structure that is compliant with the Optional Protocol, it is imperative that the mechanism be structured and carry out its mandate in accordance with the principles of the Optional Protocol, as reflected in the Subcommittee’s guidelines on national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5) and in the compilation of advice provided by the Subcommittee in response to requests from national preventive mechanisms annexed to its ninth annual report (CAT/C/57/4, annex). Experience suggests that when the mandate of the national preventive mechanism is located within an institution with a more general remit (such as an ombudsman office) it is most effectively exercised when located within a separate unit and with a head who can act in his or her own capacity. That is only partially the case in the State party. 16. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism take the necessary steps, legislative or otherwise, to ensure that it is independent within the Office of the Ombudsman, with its activities and functions clearly differentiated from those of the Ombudsman and with a mandate to act in its own capacity. 1 4 See Law No. 114/2009, article 6.