CAT/OP/CHL/1/Add.1 1.1 Report methodology and structure 6. Given the diversity of the Subcommittee’s recommendations and the range of State actors involved in their implementation, when drafting the State’s replies it was important to work systematically and to follow a clear methodology, organizing the information that was gathered and coordinating the measures that would be taken to implement the recommendations. With that in mind, the recommendations were classified on the basis of three criteria: the entity responsible (ministry or service), the type of recommendation (legislative or administrative measures) and lastly, the time frame for implementation: short term,4 medium term5 or long term6 (see chart). Chart 1 Classification of recommendations (Prepared by the author) Entity Type Legal Ministry Time frame Short Administrative Recommendation Medium Subsidiary service Administrative Long 7. The present report is a workplan that sets forth the measures being taken in response to the Subcommittee’s recommendations. Since the work consists of short-term, mediumterm and long-term measures, it will not end with the submission of this report; the interministerial working group will therefore take steps to establish a body to monitor the fulfilment of these commitments, especially the long-term ones. 8. The report covers recommendations of the Subcommittee that call for legal measures to be taken (second chapter) and recommendations that mainly require the adoption of administrative measures (third chapter). It is worth mentioning that, owing to the general nature of the recommendations made by the Subcommittee, the interministerial working group sometimes found it difficult to determine which ministry or service should be charged with implementing a particular recommendation. Bearing in mind that the recommendations concern human rights and should therefore be interpreted in the light of the pro persona principle, a distinction was made between general recommendations that could be implemented by more than one service and recommendations that needed to be implemented by a single service because of the context in which they were made or because they specifically referred to a given service. 9. Another difficulty was that the recommendations concern situations that call for a multidisciplinary approach, which requires not only the expertise of a specific service or ministry but also action at the interministerial level. In this regard, it is worth highlighting the collaboration between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and some of the services attached to the latter on the implementation of a number of measures. 10. The efforts made by the Government through these different bodies demonstrate its commitment to complying fully with the Subcommittee’s recommendations, which represent another step forward in the prevention of torture. Although these efforts show that the Government has tried to respond to the vast majority of the recommendations, that is not to say that solutions have been found to all of them. The Subcommittee’s report poses significant and, in many cases, complex challenges, so this report should be viewed as an 4 5 6 4 Measures implemented by 27 December 2016. Measures to be implemented by July 2017. Measures to be implemented from the second half of 2017 onward. GE.17-07762