CAT/C/60/3 concluded, in consultation with the Subcommittee Bureau and in accordance with established practice, that the integrity of its visit had been compromised to such an extent that it had to be suspended. 18. The visit was recommenced and concluded after the Subcommittee received assurances and guarantees from the State party that were sufficient to permit the Subcommittee to conclude that all places where persons might be deprived of their liberty could be accessed by the delegation in accordance with its mandate under article 11 (a) of the Optional Protocol, reflecting its practice as set out in paragraph 3 of its statement on the obligations of States parties to facilitate the visits of the Subcommittee (CAT/OP/24/1). 19. Further information on each of the above-mentioned visits is available in the press releases issued following each visit. D. Dialogue arising from visits, including publication of the Subcommittee’s reports by States parties and national preventive mechanisms 20. The substantive aspects of the dialogue arising from visits are confidential. Reports are made public only with the consent of the recipient. By the end of 2016, the Subcommittee had transmitted a total of 51 visit reports to States parties and national preventive mechanisms, including 12 within the reporting period to Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Italy, the Netherlands (State party and national preventive mechanism), Nicaragua, the Philippines and Turkey (State party and national preventive mechanism). A total of 24 visit reports have been made public following requests from States parties or national preventive mechanisms under article 16 (2) of the Optional Protocol, including two in 2016, namely, the reports addressed to the State party on the visit to Netherlands and on the visit to Italy. While fully respecting the principle and right of confidentiality provided for in the Optional Protocol, the Subcommittee believes that publication of its visit reports reflects the spirit of transparency on which preventive visiting is based and allows for better implementation of the respective recommendations; therefore, it encourages report recipients to authorize their publication. 21. In conformity with established practice, recipients of reports are requested to submit a written reply within six months of their transmission, giving a full account of action taken, and that will be taken, to implement the recommendations they contain. During the reporting period the Subcommittee received such replies from Chile, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua and the Philippines. The Subcommittee considers the replies from the following States parties to be overdue: Cambodia (two reports), Ecuador, Honduras, Liberia, Maldives (two reports), Mali, Nauru, Nigeria, Peru, the Republic of Moldova, Senegal and Togo. It considers the replies from the national preventive mechanisms of the following States parties to be overdue: Honduras, the Netherlands and the Republic of Moldova. 22. During the reporting period the Subcommittee held advance preparatory meetings with each of the States parties scheduled for a visit and, in accordance with established practice, invited each State party visited to meet with it at the subsequent session in order to discuss how best to advance the post-visit dialogue. E. Developments concerning national preventive mechanisms 23. Of the 83 States parties to the Optional Protocol, 57 have officially notified the Subcommittee of the designation of their national preventive mechanisms, information concerning which is listed on the Subcommittee website. 24. In 2016, the Subcommittee received no new official notifications of designation of national preventive mechanisms. At the end of 2016, the one-year deadline for the designation of a national preventive mechanism provided for under article 17 of the Optional Protocol had not yet expired for three States parties: Cabo Verde, the Central African Republic and Ghana. 5