CAT/C/46/2 Affairs at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law), both for the promotion of the Optional Protocol and its ratification, and for Subcommittee activities. IV. A. Issues of note arising from the work of the Subcommittee during the period under review Article 24 of the Optional Protocol 40. In the third annual report it was noted that the Office of Legal Affairs had proposed that the discrepancy between differing language versions of article 24 of the Optional Protocol be addressed by rectifying the Spanish and Russian texts to provide that States parties may make a declaration postponing the implementation of their obligations under either part III or part IV of the Optional Protocol “upon ratification”, rather than “after ratification”. This change entered into force, with retroactive effect, as of 29 April 2010. B. The development of the Subcommittee’s working practices 41. Throughout the course of the year the Subcommittee reflected on its working practices. It now has the benefit of four years of experience on which to draw, but is also conscious that its expansion from 10 to 25 members poses both challenges for the continuation of its existing modus operandi and opportunities to develop additional forms of activities in the fulfilment of its mandate. As has been made clear in previous annual reports, the Subcommittee has three primary functions, set out in article 11 of the Optional Protocol. These are to: (a) conduct visits to places of detention in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol; (b) exercise a variety of functions in relation to NPMs; and (c) cooperate more generally with other relevant mechanisms working for the prevention of torture. 42. These are open-ended functions and it is clear to the Subcommittee that there is no natural limit to the total amount of work which it could be expected to undertake in the fulfilment thereof. In practice, the limits that exist are those imposed by constraints resulting from a shortage of personnel (both within the Subcommittee and within its secretariat), time and money. The Subcommittee recognizes that it is in no different a position to any other bodies operating within the framework of OHCHR in facing these difficulties, but encourages OHCHR to address these shortages to the best of its ability, bearing in mind that its expansion from 10 to 25 members is intended to facilitate an increased overall level of activity. For its part, the Subcommittee recognizes that it must seek to make the most effective and efficient use of the resources available to it. 43. So far, the Subcommittee has focused its resources on conducting visits to States parties lasting on average between 8 and 10 days, which have included meetings with ministers and senior officials, NPMs (where established) and civil society, and conducting unannounced visits to places of detention. The Subcommittee continues to believe that visits of this nature reflect best practice and will continue to conduct such visits as a part of its regular programme of activities. 44. The Subcommittee has not so far been able to devote as much attention as it would have wished to the second and third elements of its mandate. It regrets that it has not had the opportunity to engage more quickly with States in the early stages of their participation in the system of the Optional Protocol, and in particular during the process of establishing their NPMs. Individual members have undertaken a great deal of NPM-related work at the invitation of other regional and national bodies, and the Subcommittee is most grateful to 12 GE.11-40683