CAT/C/60/3 B. Regional cooperation 40. The Subcommittee continued its cooperation with regional organizations, including the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the first ever joint statement of the Chairs of both bodies was released in June and is available on the Subcommittee website. The Subcommittee also continued to cooperate with regional partners, including the European Committee, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, the Council of Europe and the European Commission, through the heads of its regional teams. 41. In this context, the members of the Subcommittee met with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on 5 September at the Human Rights Implementation Centre, University of Bristol, to discuss common strategies. C. Civil society 42. The Subcommittee continued to benefit from the support of civil society, particularly the Association for the Prevention of Torture and several academic institutions. It has also benefited from its contact with civil society organizations during visits and thanks them all for their work to promote and support the Optional Protocol. The Subcommittee particularly thanks Penal Reform International and the Association for the Prevention of Torture for facilitating the joint meeting with the Committee against Torture on the Nelson Mandela Rules. Special recognition goes to the Association for its invaluable support to the Optional Protocol and the Subcommittee. IV. Issues of note arising from the work of the Subcommittee during the period under review A. Elections 43. The Subcommittee welcomes its 12 newly elected members and congratulates its new and returning members on their election. The Subcommittee expresses gratitude to its departing members: Enrique Andrés Font, Dame Lowell Goddard, Suzanne Jabbour, Miloš Janković, Paul Lam Shang Leen, Víctor Madrigal-Borloz, and Maria Margarida Pressburger. The Subcommittee benefits greatly from the fresh perspectives of its new members, is also aware of the significant loss of experience that the rotation of members entails, and notes the implications for dialogue based on visits being sustained over time. The Subcommittee is currently revising its approach to post-visit dialogue, aiming at swifter and more intensive dialogue within a shorter time frame in order to capitalize on the experience of those members participating in each country visit. B. 1. Development of working practices Visits 44. Visits are one of the fundamental functions of the Subcommittee. Notwithstanding the financial and human resource constraints within the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Subcommittee and its secretariat have been able to increase the number of visits each year since 2011, from three visits in 2011 to eight in 2015. In 2016, the Subcommittee again expanded its programme, undertaking 10 visits, 1 of which, to Ukraine, took place in two parts. The Subcommittee does not believe that any further expansion of its visit programme is possible, given current levels of resourcing, and that future areas of growth associated with the visiting programme should be focused on enriching and accelerating post-visit dialogue. 45. In 2015 the Subcommittee decided to cease categorizing its visits as particular types. Therefore, in 2016, each visit addressed all aspects of the Subcommittee’s preventive mandate, and in particular its two primary responsibilities of visiting places of deprivation 8