CAT/OP/SEN/2 deprivation of liberty. The Observatory should also use the means at its disposal, for example the Monitoring Committee, one of whose members is a member of parliament, to make the case, on the basis of the detailed budget, for a more substantial budget allocation than the 2012 one. 26. The technical staff of the national preventive mechanism at the time of the visit comprised two judges on secondment from the Ministry of Justice. Leaving aside the concern expressed above regarding the risk such a practice poses to the independence of the national preventive mechanism, the Subcommittee also finds the understaffing and the narrow range of expertise worrisome. The Subcommittee is aware that the Observatory’s rules of procedure allow for outside assistance to be called in in order to fill such gaps and that its staffing difficulties are related to the budget constraints. 27. While emphasizing the need to keep the organizational structure as light as possible in the interests of institutional sustainability, the Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism diversify the profile of its technical staff and explore creative ways of strengthening the human resources at its disposal by, for example, setting up internship programmes, or partnerships with universities and civil society. 28. The Subcommittee is pleased that the Observatory was able to make its first visits to places of deprivation of liberty during the Subcommittee’s visit to Senegal, and that it intends to submit a report with comments and relevant recommendations. 29. The delegation recommends that the Observatory make follow-up visits to the institutions it visited with the Subcommittee, to observe the implementation of the recommendations. The Subcommittee also encourages the Observatory to continue to make visits, regardless of the resources placed at its disposal, starting with institutions in the Dakar region, where visits will not incur great expense. 30. The Subcommittee takes note of the Observatory’s work on communication since it was set up and the ongoing development of its communication strategy. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee notes that the Observatory’s main interlocutors, such as prison directors and persons deprived of liberty, are still not aware of its existence. 31. The Subcommittee recommends that the Observatory continue working to raise its profile and make its mandate and work known to the general public. The Observatory’s communication strategy should include provision for simple, accessible procedures through which the general public can provide it with relevant information. The Subcommittee also recommends that the strategy include involvement of the Observatory in any Government action relevant to its mandate, strengthening of its ties with national partners and involvement in training programmes for judges, the police and gendarmes, prison officers, health workers and the Armed Forces. 32. The Observatory should take steps to ensure that its annual reports can be submitted and debated in Parliament as well as being submitted to the President of the Republic. C. Methodological recommendations 33. The Subcommittee wishes to emphasize from the outset that the brevity of the visits conducted jointly with the national preventive mechanism precluded the application of the various methodologies for visits to places of deprivation of liberty. Consequently, the Subcommittee’s comments relate to both the methodologies observed and those the Observatory ought to consider applying, whether or not they are included in the Observatory’s Guidance on Visits to Places of Deprivation of Liberty. The Subcommittee 6 GE.13-45918