CAT/OP/MDA/1 of the Centre for Human Rights (the National Human Rights Institution), in combination with the Consultative Council, as a NPM of Moldova. 8. The Subcommittee welcomes the efforts of the authorities to combat and prevent torture and ill-treatment, inter alia, through amendments of the Criminal Code and the comprehensive Justice Sector Reform Strategy for 2011-2016. Furthermore, the Subcommittee commends the State party for placing the elimination and prevention of torture as one of the priorities in its National Human Rights Action Plan 2011–2014 and creating a Working Group to draft amendments to the current Law on Parliamentary Advocates, which currently constitutes the legislative framework for the work of the NPM. 9. Whilst welcoming the review of the legislation on NPM, the Subcommittee regrets, however, that it got hold of the new draft law only after it finalized its visit to the Republic of Moldova and, thus, could not realize its advisory mandate to the full capacity during the visit. The Subcommittee welcomes the assurances of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Efrim, that the Subcommittee’s views on the draft legislation will be taken into account and the full compliance of the law with the OPCAT requirements will be ensured. 10. In accordance with its mandate, as set out in article 11 (b), subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), the Subcommittee will address a separate confidential report to the NPM of Moldova. III. Main legal, structural and institutional obstacles faced by the current national preventive mechanism 11. Legal basis. The ambiguous legal basis was identified as one of the main obstacles hindering the efficiency of the national preventive mechanism. Actually, there is a contradiction between article 232 of the Law on Ombudsmen and paragraph 41 of the Regulations of the Centre for Human Rights, which generates various interpretations on who fulfils the mandate of the NPM. In practice, the Subcommittee observed that this ambiguity jeopardizes significantly the collegial work and information sharing, and often results in conflicting positions of the Centre for Human Rights versus the Consultative Council. 12. Accordingly, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party eliminate current legal ambiguity through the pertinent amendments of the Law on Parliamentary Advocates (see also Chapter IV of the present report). 13. Structure and resources. The Subcommittee noted the absence of a separate structure and a distinct budget line for the functions of the NPM within the Centre for Human Rights. In addition, the Subcommittee learned that the proposal to create a specialized subunit for torture prevention within the Centre for Human Rights was pending consideration in the Parliament since July 2011. In this connection, the Subcommittee recalls that structural problems of that nature undermine the functional independence of the NPM and, thus, place the State party in conflict with articles 18.1 and 18.3 of the Optional Protocol. 14. Pursuant to paragraph 39 of the Regulations of the Centre, its budget covers only the preventive visits and the fees of external experts from different fields, not the honoraria of the members of the Consultative Council, leading, thus, to a de facto unequal treatment among members of the national mechanism. Moreover, the Consultative Council is not supported by the administrative team, which jeopardizes the quality of reports, the motivation of the members and, in the long term, the credibility of the NPM as a whole. 15. At the same time, staff members of the Centre for Human Rights deal not only with NPM-related issues but also with a broad range of other activities under Ombudsmen 4