CAT/OP/SEN/2 44. In addition to the points mentioned in paragraph 3.2.2 of the Guidance on Visits, the Observatory should look at other less tangible factors that affect conditions of detention, such as the relations between prison staff and prisoners, the existence of formal and informal hierarchies among detainees and the criteria for access to highly prized areas, where detainees have better conditions. Information of this kind can be gathered by means of interviews organized after the general tour of the premises and without the presence of prison staff. 45. The Guidance on Visits provides for an introduction of the visiting team to be made during the interview with the official in charge, but there is no provision for a similar introduction to be made during the interviews with the persons deprived of liberty. 46. The Subcommittee recommends that the visiting team introduce itself to the detainees during its interviews with them and explain the mandate of the national preventive mechanism — with particular emphasis on the prevention component — and the purpose of the interviews. It is essential to obtain the detainee’s consent and to explain that the interview is confidential and voluntary and may be halted at any moment at their request. 47. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism prepare leaflets for persons deprived of their liberty and for their families, explaining its mandate and its methods of work and giving contact details. The leaflet should also explain what informed consent is and state that reprisals of any kind should be brought to its attention. 48. The methodology of the national preventive mechanism provides for an individual interview with a detainee only where their situation seems abnormal by comparison with that of other detainees. 49. Inasmuch as the purpose of visits by the national preventive mechanism is to make recommendations regarding systemic problems, not to identify individual problem cases, the Subcommittee is of the opinion that an individual interview should not be used only where the situation is abnormal, but also as a means of gathering information on the general conditions of detention. With due respect for the security regulations in force in any given institution, the Subcommittee draws the attention of the Observatory to the fact that it is possible to conduct interviews with detainees inside cells and without surveillance. 50. The Subcommittee notes with interest that the national preventive mechanism recognizes that group interviews do not permit discussion of the most sensitive topics. The Subcommittee also wishes to draw attention to the risks that group interviews may pose to certain detainees, e.g., reprisals, and to the fact that the situation can rapidly get out of hand. 51. The Subcommittee recommends that the Observatory give some thought to what situations may appropriately be addressed in group interviews and list in the Guidance on Visits those subjects that can be raised in such interviews (Guidance on Visits, para. 3.3.3). 52. While noting the provision made in the legislation to protect against reprisals, including the protection of the identity of persons who have contacted or cooperated with the Observatory and the protection of State officials from disciplinary measures, the Subcommittee notes that no specific measures are mentioned in the methodology developed by the Observatory. 53. The Subcommittee recommends that the Observatory develop a methodology for protecting persons who have contacted or cooperated with the Observatory from reprisals, taking account of the Senegalese context. The Subcommittee points out that 8 GE.13-45918