CPT: 13TH GENERAL REPORT 11 Meetings and working methods 11. The CPT held three one-week plenary sessions in 2002 (in March, July and November), and the same pattern will be followed in 2003. During 2002, the CPT adopted 18 reports (covering 20 visits): on visits to Albania, Belgium, Greece, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey in 2001; and to Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Russia (Chechen Republic), “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and the United Kingdom in 2002. To date in 2003, the CPT has adopted 11 reports (covering 12 visits): on visits to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine in 2002; and to Luxembourg, Moldova (Transnistrian region), Romania, Sweden and Turkey in 2003. 12. The working group set up by the CPT in July 2000 to review all aspects of the Committee’s working methods presented its final report at the March 2003 plenary session. Information on this group’s work has been provided in previous general reports. As was pointed in the 12th General Report, it has already led to the provisional introduction of a system of “advisers”, based on members volunteering to take a specific interest in particular countries. It is hoped in this way to place individual members in a position to make a more effective contribution to the CPT’s activities. For the time being, the system is being applied – on a twoyear pilot project basis – to six countries (France, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Germany, Italy, Russia and Sweden); two advisers have been designated in respect of each of those countries. The members concerned work in close cooperation with the CPT’s Secretariat and meet and communicate regularly in order to exchange views. The working group’s final report did not result in any revolutionary changes to the CPT’s working methods. However, a considerable amount of “finetuning” of existing arrangements was proposed, and accepted by the Committee. Most notably, visiting delegations and (where they exist already) country advisers have been given greater responsibility for the follow-up of visits and hence for the pursuit of the ongoing dialogue with States. More generally, the CPT endorsed the working group’s view that factfinding must be accompanied by the development of strategies aimed at bringing about change. This will require continuous reflection about the most effective methods of pursuing dialogue with each Party to the Convention. 13. The discussions which CPT delegations hold with senior officials in the context of visits continue to be supplemented, in appropriate cases, by high-level talks between the national authorities and CPT representatives. Such direct contacts outside the context of a visit have frequently made it possible to clear up misunderstandings and enrich the ongoing dialogue with States. Reference has already been made to the talks which were held in Ankara in September 2002 and July 2003 , and in Moscow in December 2002 . Similar talks were organised in Chisinau in April 2002, Brussels in October 2002 and the Hague in June 2003 . 14. Should the CPT adopt a more proactive approach vis-à-vis the implementation of its recommendations, in particular those with substantial financial implications, by seeking to identify means of providing assistance to States? This question first surfaced at the CPT’s tenth-anniversary event held in Strasbourg on 19 November 1999, and the Committee has been wrestling with it ever since. The CPT is grateful to the Association for the Prevention of Torture for having organised in Strasbourg, on 24 and 25 June 2002, a workshop on the theme “How to improve the implementation of CPT recommendations?”, which helped to identify the multifarious issues involved. This subject remains under active consideration by the CPT and the Committee would welcome any comments concerning it which interested persons might wish to present.