CAT/C/42/2 page 10 C. Publication of the visit reports of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture 28. As of 31 March 2009, the SPT visit reports on Sweden and the Maldives, (two out of the five States parties to have received an SPT visit report) and the authorities’ responses are in the public domain.13 The SPT hopes that in due course the authorities of every State party visited will request that the visit report and the authorities’ response to it be published.14 Until such time the visit reports remain confidential. 29. Publication of an SPT visit report and the response from the authorities concerned is a sign of the commitment of the State party to the objectives of the OPCAT. It enables civil society to consider the issues addressed in the report and to work with the authorities on implementation of the recommendations to improve the protection of people deprived of their liberty. The SPT warmly welcomes the decision to publish taken by the authorities of Sweden and the Maldives. The SPT hopes that other States parties will follow this excellent example. D. Issues arising from the visits 30. The OPCAT provides that SPT members may be accompanied on visits by experts of demonstrated professional experience and knowledge to be selected from a roster prepared on the basis of proposals made by the States parties, the OHCHR and the United Nations Centre for International Crime Prevention.15 To date 22 States parties have provided names and details of experts for the roster. In 2008 the United Nations set up a panel to select names to be placed on the roster in addition to the experts proposed by States parties. External experts can contribute to the work of the SPT by providing a diversity of perspectives and professional expertise to complement those of SPT members. The SPT hopes that experts from all regions of the world will be included in the roster. The SPT still awaits the roster of experts and, in its absence, continues to select experts from the list of names proposed by States parties and from among experts widely recognized as having the required relevant expertise. During the period covered by the present report, the SPT was accompanied on one visit by only one expert, owing to budgetary constraints. 31. The SPT has concerns about the possibility of reprisals after its visits. People deprived of their liberty with whom the SPT delegation has spoken may be threatened if they do not reveal the content of these contacts or punished for having spoken with the delegation. In addition, the SPT has been made aware that some people deprived of their liberty may have been warned in advance not to say anything to the SPT delegation. It should be self-evident that conduct of this kind on the part of any official or person acting for the State would be a breach of the obligation to cooperate with the SPT as provided in the OPCAT. Moreover, article 15 of the OPCAT lays a positive obligation upon the State to take action to ensure that there are no reprisals as a consequence of an SPT visit. 13 See http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/opcat/index.htm. 14 In accordance with article 16, paragraph 2 of OPCAT. 15 Article 13, paragraph 3.