CAT/C/69/3 Annex The Subcommittee on Prevention and the 2020 review 1. The Subcommittee approaches the 2020 review in a positive spirit, seeking to ensure that the review enhances the capacity of the treaty bodies, individually and collectively, to put rights holders at the heart of their work by maximising the effectiveness of the system. 2. Inspired by the principles and approaches articulated at the conference on strengthening the treaty body system held at Wilton Park in March 2018, the Chairs of the treaty bodies, at their thirtieth meeting, in New York in May 2018, decided to canvass the views of all treaty bodies on a series of issues relating to their working practices and a number of suggestions for change. In particular, these related to the length of the reporting cycle, whether consideration of State party reports should be focused on a single session at which a State met with the treaty bodies, rather than have States come to sessions of the treaty bodies as is currently the case, and whether State party reports might be considered in situ rather than in Geneva. 3. As inputs for the 2020 review are now being prepared, the Subcommittee believes that it is important to make the following points: (a) The Subcommittee has consistently argued that it ought to have the capacity to engage with States through its visiting mandate with a periodicity akin to that of the reporting cycle of the other human rights treaty bodies. This reflects its experience that periods of about four years are appropriate for both its visits and for reporting. It does not believe that periods of much more than four years for either visiting or reporting are appropriate; (b) Given its experience of working in the field, the Subcommittee believes that in situ engagement has many advantages over procedures that are focused solely on Geneva. It firmly supports focused engagement by the treaty bodies both in situ and in Geneva, and would encourage participants in the review to embrace and facilitate this, to bring their work closer to rights holders, duty bearers, service users and providers and civil society more generally. 4. The Subcommittee is, in addition, conscious that – as in the process leading up to the adoption of General Assembly resolution 68/268 – its mandate-specific work has not received sufficient consideration. It is deeply concerned that the 2020 review will fail to rectify this failure. It therefore believes it is important to stress that, in accordance with its mandate under article 11 of the Optional Protocol, the Subcommittee should, at a minimum: (a) Be able to undertake 10 to 12 formal visits per year, in accordance with article 11 (a) of the Optional Protocol; (b) Be allocated specific resources in order for it to support its mandate of advising States and assisting them in the establishment of national preventive mechanisms, and advising the mechanisms on their work and practice, in accordance with article 11 (b) of the Optional Protocol (this has not been the case in the past); (c) Have the resourcing necessary to enable it to engage effectively with other international bodies working in the field of torture prevention, in accordance with article 11 (c) of the Optional Protocol; (d) Have the capacity and resourcing necessary to enable it to engage with States on the implementation of its recommendations through a variety of formats. 5. In practical terms, this also means that, in order to be able to process its work, the Subcommittee would need to have an additional week of plenary time every year and, in addition, the capacity to work in sections (chambers/working groups) with translation facilities for at least half of each of its sessions. 6. Access to enhanced video conferencing facilities for its chambers/working groups are also essential for the Subcommittee to maintain regular contact at its sessions with national 11