CAT/C/60/3 of liberty and advising on the establishment or operation of the national preventive mechanisms, with reports addressed to the Government and/or the national preventive mechanism, as appropriate. During the course of 2016 the new methodology magnified the practical impact of the visits, enabling the Subcommittee to better fulfil its mandate under article 11 (1) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 2. Working groups 46. The working group on medical issues continued its work on a health-care resource tool in the form of a compilation of the recommendations on health care contained in Subcommittee visit reports. It held meetings with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, the Association for the Prevention of Torture and Harm Reduction International on issues of mutual interest. It also commenced work in cooperation with other United Nations mechanisms, particularly regarding the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) and the Nelson Mandela Rules. 47. The working group on procedural issues continued to respond to requests for guidance from national preventive mechanisms. The Subcommittee encourages such requests and hopes that the public presentation on its website of the compilation of the resulting position papers will be of general interest. The working group assisted in the development of the Subcommittee position paper on States whose fulfilment of obligations under article 17 of the Optional Protocol have been substantially delayed. The working group also revised the Subcommittee’s policy on reprisals (CAT/OP/6/Rev.1) in the light of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (San José Guidelines) and commenced work on the revision of the Subcommittee’s working methods. 48. The working group on jurisprudence and thematic issues concluded its work on the internal Subcommittee papers on prevention of torture in the transfer of persons deprived of their liberty and on prevention of torture in immigration detention centres. The Subcommittee may review the papers, in the light of its experience, with a view to making them public. The working group also commenced discussion of a new paper (see para. 51). 49. At its twenty-eighth session, the Subcommittee decided to establish a working group on the Special Fund established under article 26 of the Optional Protocol in order to strengthen and facilitate the work of the Fund (CAT/OP/28/2). The initial terms of reference of the working group are contained in the Subcommittee’s decision (ibid.). 3. Regional teams 50. Regional teams and country rapporteurs have continued to be in frequent dialogue and communication with national preventive mechanisms, facilitating the exchange of information and advice. Owing to the different sizes of, and levels of engagement in, the various regional teams, they have adopted the working methodologies that best suit their needs, which have included increased use of videoconferencing to ensure better outreach and efficiency. 4. Development of Subcommittee position papers 51. The working group on jurisprudence and thematic issues adopted two position papers during the period under review (see para. 48 above). It is currently considering a position paper on the independence of national preventive mechanisms, with a focus on those within ombudsman’s offices and national human rights institutions. As in previous years, the Subcommittee welcomes comments and contributions for the development of the position paper. 5. Additional meeting time 52. The Subcommittee has held three one-week plenary sessions each year since it commenced its work in February 2007. The Subcommittee initially had 10 members and there were 34 States parties to the Optional Protocol. There are now 25 members and 83 States parties. As mentioned above, whereas in its early years the Subcommittee undertook 3 visits each year, it now undertakes about 10 per year. In addition, the Subcommittee 9