Part II: Preventing torture: NHRIs in action • legislation or other basis of establishment • existing mandate and jurisdiction • existing powers, including in relation to both public and private places of deprivation of liberty • independence (both real and perceived) • existing human, financial and logistical resources • relations with the authorities and other relevant actors • working methods, and existing practices and experience, including in relation to detention monitoring • immunities and privileges of both elected and hired members and staff. It is also important to map the number and type of places where people are deprived of liberty in the country. These two mapping activities may be done by the government but also by existing oversight bodies, such as the NHRIs, or other actors such as civil society. They can provide a useful starting point for developing recommendations on possible options for the NPM. Based on this analysis, and on the consultation process, States can then decide their preferred model for the NPM. This could include: • the establishment of an entirely new specialised institution mechanism, or • the designation of an existing body, such as the NHRI, or • the designation of multiple bodies, either existing bodies, new bodies or a combination of both. Insights from practice: In Paraguay, following the State’s ratification of the Optional Protocol, a three-day national seminar was held that brought together hundreds of representatives from the governmental and non-governmental sectors. At the end of the forum, a 13-member NPM drafting committee was established by consensus, comprising government and civil society representatives. After six months of consultations, a draft law to create the National Commission to Prevent Torture was presented to the Congress. In its second annual report, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture “noted with appreciation that the process of development of the draft law establishing the NPM has been characterized by openness, transparency and inclusivity” (CAT/C/42/2, para. 38). The Australian Human Rights Commission played an active role in the consultation process on the NPM designation. Upon request of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, it conducted consultations with civil society to advise the Australian Government on OPCAT implementation. First, in 2017, the Commission produced an interim report summarising the views received by civil society through written submissions and roundtables. The report informed the ratification process, which was completed by the government in December 2017. In 2018, a second phase of consultation was launched to provide feedback on the proposals and on the detail of how OPCAT should be implemented in Australia. The Commission published the final report in June 2020. 1.3. Consideration of NHRIs as NPM When there is an independent NHRI operating in the country, designating the NHRI as the NPM is an option available to the Government. Its independence, existing mandate and functioning, as well as the level of credibility and legitimacy it has established with the authorities and the broader society, should be carefully examined. 133