Preventing Torture An Operational Guide for National Human Rights Institutions - Updated Edition 2.2. Opportunities and challenges for NHRIs designated as NPM Designating an NHRI as NPM presents several advantages, when the institution has a strong legal basis, expertise, positive reputation, trust and visibility, as well as strong links and experience with the international human rights system and its status within international and regional NHRI networks. NHRIs designated as NPMs also raise specific challenges in terms of resources, mandate, composition and internal coordination. 2.2.1. Resources According to the Optional Protocol, States should make available the necessary resources for the effective functioning of the NPM. Designating an existing NHRI as the NPM should not be viewed by the Government as an economical way of implementing its responsibilities under the Optional Protocol. As highlighted in the Nairobi Declaration, NHRIs can undertake this additional mandate only if they are provided with the necessary human and financial resources. 2.2.2. Legislation and powers Most NHRIs have a strong legal basis, often grounded in the constitution. In many cases, this founding legislation contains some powers required by the Optional Protocol, in particular related to visiting places of detention. However, the founding legislation of NHRIs often falls short of compliance with all OPCAT requirements. In such cases, there are several options: • pass new or additional legislation designating the NHRI as the NPM • revisit the institution’s founding legislation entirely and include the required amendments. Regardless of the approach chosen, the specific functions and powers of the NPM should be stated explicitly in law, in order to sustain the NPM’s existence in the long term. This process will also need to be accompanied by discussions on the institutions’ internal rules and processes. Insights from practice: Togo ratified the Optional Protocol in 2010. It decided to give the mandate to the NHRI, the Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme but to revise its legal basis. The 2005 CNDH law was profoundly amended in 2018. The new Commission is now composed of nine members divided into three sub-commissions. The sub-commission on prevention is implementing the NPM mandate. Maldives ratified the Optional Protocol in 2006 and the National Human Rights Commission was designated as NPM by Presidential Decree in 2008. The 2013 Anti-torture Act officially designated the NHRI as NPM and provided a legislative basis to this mandate. 2.2.3 Mandate and change of mindset NHRIs have a mandate to handle complaints and to investigate and document cases of human rights violations. The fact that the NHRI already undertakes visits to places of detention is not, in itself, sufficient to ensure that these visits will meet the OPCAT requirements. The preventive visits described in the OPCAT differ in their objectives and their approach from other types of visits, in particular visits to investigate complaints of torture and ill-treatment. The work of an NPM is forward-looking, multidisciplinary, aimed at reducing risks and root causes of torture and ill-treatment, and at protecting the dignity of those deprived of their liberty, even in the absence of complaints. The approach of NPMs is also based on ongoing, constructive engagement and dialogue with the authorities. It often focuses on bridging the gap between what exists in law 136