CAT/OP/SEN/2 recommends that, where appropriate, the recommendations are taken into account when revising relevant institutional texts such as the rules of procedure and the Guidance on Visits. 34. Preparations for visits. The Subcommittee notes that the Guidance on Visits prepared by the Observatory deals specifically with the methodologies to be applied when visiting prisons. 35. The Observatory should prepare methodologies for visits to places of deprivation of liberty of other kinds covered by the mandate of the national preventive mechanism, such as police and gendarmerie stations and health institutions. As regards visits to police and gendarmerie stations, the main points to look out for are the procedures for questioning and record-keeping and the handling of arrests and arrival at the place of detention. 36. The Observatory has informed the Subcommittee that the various ministries have provided it with lists of places of deprivation of liberty for which they are responsible; this excludes those run by the Ministry of the Armed Forces. 37. The Subcommittee recommends that the Observatory set up a database of places of deprivation of liberty in Senegal in which to place the information in its possession. The database should include the information mentioned in paragraph 2.1 of the Guidance on Visits, and also the physical features of each institution, such as the layout and furnishing of the blocks, as well as the measurements of buildings, yards and cells. The information gathered during successive visits should be fed into the database. 38. In the Subcommittee’s view, unannounced or short-notice visits give a much more realistic idea of conditions in a place of deprivation of liberty. 39. The Subcommittee recommends that the Observatory include in the Guidance on Visits the possibility of making unannounced visits and that it keep the schedule of visits confidential. 40. During visits. At Reubeuss prison, because of the time available, it was not possible to have a full tour of the premises on top of the interviews with the prison administration at the start and end of the visit. In other words, the visit did not go beyond what was observable and there was no time, for example, to have private meetings with prisoners or prison staff, or to take a proper look at the records. 41. The Subcommittee emphasizes that a full visit to a prison such as Reubeuss takes several days. The visiting team should conduct the visit following a programme worked out in advance and reflecting the purpose of the visit. The Subcommittee also recommends that the Observatory make use of other techniques than interviews for gathering information, including passive observation or deploying the visiting team in groups stationed at various points around the premises. 42. The Subcommittee confirms the importance of the various points mentioned by the Observatory in paragraph 3.1 of the Guidance on Visits; they should be raised in the interview with the official in charge of the place of detention at the start of the visit. 43. The Subcommittee nevertheless emphasizes the importance of keeping this interview as brief as possible so as to be able to pay more attention to the conditions of detention. Furthermore, an interview of this kind with the official in charge may not be needed in the follow-up visits. Sensitive areas to be inspected more thoroughly can be identified during the general tour of the institution. Lastly, the Subcommittee considers that private interviews with members of staff should not be conducted only at their request (Guidance on Visits, para. 3.3.4). GE.13-45918 7