CAT/OP/SEN/2 it is possible, among other things, to call on partner organizations to follow up the situation, to keep in touch with detainees’ families, and to remind staff at the places of deprivation of liberty visited that intimidation and reprisals of any kind against persons who have cooperated with the Observatory — and indeed against any person deprived of liberty — is a violation of the law. 54. With regard to paragraph 3.3.5 of the Observatory’s Guidance on Visits, the Subcommittee is of the opinion that the final interview with the official in charge of the institution visited should be devoted to a presentation of the most important observations and its recommendations, if any – particularly recommendations that can be implemented immediately. The Subcommittee considers that during the final interview it is essential to be open with the official in charge with regard to the main problems identified, except in respect of individual cases where it is thought that the physical and psychological integrity of detainees would be compromised by the mere fact that the official in charge was directly involved (such situations should be referred to the authorities supervising the official in question). 55. Follow-up to visits. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism prepare visit reports as speedily as possible to help the officials in charge of the institutions visited make the connection between the visit and the report. As to content, apart from general information on the visit and the problems noted, the report should include information that enables readers, including those who are not familiar with the institutions visited, to form a realistic picture of the situations. Thus reports should describe the places visited giving details of, for example, the dimensions of cells, the lighting, the toilet facilities and the ventilation. 56. In its reports, the national preventive mechanism should make practical recommendations and propose verifiable corrective measures that can be followed up. The recommendations should emphasize prevention and set out the root causes of the problems found in the places of detention. For example, in the case of overcrowding in Reubeuss prison, the national preventive mechanism should make recommendations to unblock the judicial system in Senegal. In addition, given that proper registration of deprivation of liberty is one of the fundamental guarantees against ill-treatment, the national preventive mechanism should make recommendations regarding the setting up of a central, standardized and, if possible, computerized register system permitting the effective monitoring of any individual’s detention. 57. The recommendations of the national preventive mechanism should be based on international human rights standards, and in particular the relevant United Nations standards on prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, as provided for in the Optional Protocol. IV. Final recommendations 58. In the view of the Subcommittee, the strong mandate of the National Observatory of Places of Deprivation of Liberty gives the Observatory enormous potential as a national preventive mechanism. Accordingly, the Subcommittee encourages it to review its working methods on a regular basis and avail itself of training courses in order to strengthen its ability to discharge its responsibilities under the Optional Protocol. 59. The Subcommittee encourages the Observatory to seek the assistance of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in following up these recommendations. Specifically, the Subcommittee encourages the Observatory to consider holding a national workshop to adopt a programme for the implementation of the recommendations made by the Subcommittee following this advisory visit. GE.13-45918 9