required to undertake jointly some further training, as well as to review jointly their working methods on a regular basis, in order to
enhance their ability to perform collectively and individually the functions entrusted to them under the Optional Protocol.
9.The Subcommittee recognizes that not all the problems encountered are attributable to the NPM, as the authorities would be liable
for instance for institutional factors, such as the ambiguous legislative framework or the budgetary constraints. Therefore, a number of
legal, structural and institutional problems will be raised by the Subcommittee in its separate and confidential report to the authorities.
Recommendations relating to main legal, structural and institutional issues
10.Although the Optional Protocol leaves it up to the State Party’s discretion in which institutional format the NPM should be set up,
the Protocol is axiomatic that the NPM must be structured in a manner which fully reflects its provisions. The Subcommittee’s
“Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms” represent a key-tool in that domain.
11.The Subcommittee is fully aware that current normative deficiencies create various interpretations regarding which institution 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.The Subcommittee could indeed witness a lack of team spirit in preparation and conduct of visits (see below methodological
recommendations) as well as during some meetings. The Subcommittee believes that the lack of a unified team has unfortunately led
to a number of additional wide-ranging problems affecting the NPM in its structure and as an institution, inter alia, the discrepancy of
working methods, the misunderstandings due to poor communication, the overlap of roles, the absence of clear definition of tasks, the
lack of common strategy, the poor planning of visits and, to some extent, the incoherent methods of work. The Subcommittee is of
the view that these problems may jeopardize the efficiency and the institutional credibility of the NPM as a whole.
13.While awaiting a definitive solution to the current legal ambiguity through a prompt legal reform, today’s functioning of the NPM as
one institution could be improved with a better communication and an improved coordination of work between the Centre for Human
Rights and the Consultative Council. In this connection, the Subcommittee was encouraged to hear from both institutions during the
meeting on Tuesday, 2 October 2012, that they have a good will to put aside a few misunderstandings and strive to work as a
collegial body, as envisioned by the Optional Protocol.
14. While recalling that the O ptional Protocol envisages the NPM as a collegial body of experts the S ubcommittee
urges the members of the NPM to improve information sharing through regular meetings, new intranet page and, most
importantly, collaborative attitude.
15.The Subcommittee has noticed that, in the absence of a separate unit for torture prevention, the broad mandate of the Centre for
Human Rights could lead to a confusion of its role. For instance, staff members who deal with NPM issues within the Centre, also
deal with individual complaints and other activities, which may undermine preventive focus of its work.
16.Moreover, when the Centre for Human Rights submits proposals concerning existing or draft legislation that deals with the
prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, it does not indicate whether this is being done in its capacity of the NPM or as
the National Human Rights Institution. Finally and to the extent of the Subcommittee’s knowledge, the Consultative Council does not
submit proposals concerning existing or draft legislation in the NPM capacity.
17. In order to fully discharge its mandate in accordance with article 19 (c) of the Optional Protocol, the S ubcommittee
recommends that the NPM as a collegial body take proactive steps to submit proposals and comments concerning
existing or draft legislation that deals with the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In conformity with
the Guidelines on the national preventive mechanisms , the Subcommittee recommends separating activities of the
Centre for Human Rights in the general capacity of the National Human Rights Institution from its functions as the
NPM. When the C entre implements activities under the NPM mandate, it should be clearly stated as such in all visits,
meetings, written communications with the authorities, penitentiary and other institutions and individuals .
18.The Subcommittee observed during the meetings that the authorities in charge of places of detention, persons deprived of liberty
and civil society do not perceive the Consultative Council and the Centre for Human Rights as a single collegial body that constitutes
the NPM of Moldova. The Subcommittee is of the view that the mechanism’s lack of visibility may have a detrimental effect on the
efficiency and credibility of the NPM.
19. The S ubcommittee recommends that the NPM enhance its institutional visibility th rough public awareness
campaigns and other promotional activities. The S ubcommittee recommends elaborating and distributing material on
NPM’s mandate and activities in the places of deprivation of liberty , and to the civil society at large, including
associations of former detainees or former patients of mental health system . Finally, the NPM should disseminate its
Annual Reports, including by transmitting them to the S ubcommittee, as provided for and for the purposes set out in the
Optional Protocol .
20.The Subcommittee is aware of other institutional, structural and legislative constraints to the NPM work, such as the absence of a
separate structure and of a separate budget line for the NPM function within the Centre for Human Rights, lack of honorarium and of
administrative support team for the members of the Consultative Council and the need to review salary grades for employees of the
Centre.
2 1 . The Subcommittee recommends that the NPM continue collaborating with the Working Group
on the amendments to the Law on Parliamentary Advocates, as well as engaging in a proactive
fashion with the legislature and any other relevant institutions, in particular the Parliamentary
Human Rights Commission, in order to contribute to the elimination of any current or future legal