CAT/C/46/2 the detriment of vulnerable prisoners, or are used as means of coercion or extortion. The Subcommittee is aware that such self-governance systems may themselves be connected to or influenced by more general problems of corruption within the criminal justice system, which must also be addressed. In addition, the authorities must ensure that all inmates are treated equally and that any advantages enjoyed by those exercising such functions do not exceed what is reasonably necessary to enable them to perform their recognized and legitimate functions. If such systems do exist, they should be officially recognized, with clear and transparent terms of reference and criteria for the selection of those exercising positions of internal responsibility. Such persons should be closely supervised. In no circumstances should such persons be able to control access to the authorities responsible for the places or detention, including access to medical staff or to complaints mechanisms, or to exercise any disciplinary powers over fellow inmates. E. Publication of Subcommittee visit reports and dialogue with States parties 58. As has already been noted, States parties have now authorized the publication of five visit reports and one follow-up reply. Given that three reports have only been relatively recently transmitted, this suggests that there is a welcome trend towards publication. Publication is not, however, an end itself. Rather, it is an important enhancement to the process of dialogue and engagement, allowing the Subcommittee’s specific recommendations to be more widely known. The Subcommittee is concerned that followup replies to visit reports (published or not) have either not been submitted within the time limit requested or, in some instances, have not been submitted at all. Whereas the former situation delays substantive dialogue on the implementation of recommendations, in the latter situation the focus of dialogue tends to become more focused on the question of when the reply might be received rather than measures of implementation. The Subcommittee therefore urges States parties to submit replies within the time frames requested, so that the dialogue on implementation can commence. F. The Subcommittee’s website 59. The Subcommittee’s website has been mentioned frequently throughout this report. The Subcommittee would, however, like to draw particular attention to the rich sources of information that it contains and those that may easily be accessed through it. For example, it includes copies of relevant correspondence between the Subcommittee and States parties concerning the designation of NPMs. It also includes links to the websites of various national NPMs and copies of NPM annual reports which have been transmitted to the Subcommittee. It also contains links to excellent websites run by NGOs and others, containing materials related to the Optional Protocol. The Subcommittee is keen to see the further expansion of its website and will actively explore the possibilities of using it to facilitate the flow of information concerning the work of the Subcommittee and NPMs. G. The obligation to establish national preventive mechanisms 60. Unless a declaration was made under article 24 at the time of ratification (see chap. II, sect. E above), all States parties to the Optional Protocol are obliged to designate their NPM within one year of the Optional Protocol’s entry into force. The Subcommittee is aware that the establishment of an NPM is not always easy and recognizes that it is better that it be done well than that it be done poorly in haste. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee believes that establishing an Optional Protocol-compliant NPM is a vital component of the 16 GE.11-40683