CAT/OP/BEN/3 13. The Subcommittee finds it regrettable, however, that the information and documents it had requested before the visit were not provided until very late, thereby preventing it from preparing for the visit in a wholly satisfactory manner. 14. The Subcommittee notes with satisfaction that the prison wardens and the authorities at police and gendarmerie stations, including junior personnel, were duly informed of its visit and provided full access to places of deprivation of liberty and detainees. It also notes the level of professionalism, courtesy and efficiency of custodial staff, in addition to their support for human rights principles, which is probably the result of their human rights training. 15. This cooperation and this positive attitude are a considerable improvement on what it experienced on the visit in 2008, during which the Subcommittee had problems gaining access to some places of detention and detainees. III. Report methodology and structure 16. The Subcommittee stresses that, despite some improvements, very limited in scope, the situation has not changed much in the State party and that, in some cases, it has become worse. The purpose of the Subcommittee’s observations and recommendations is therefore not to go over again at length those already made in the previous report but rather to enable the State party to reflect on the prevention of torture and in particular on the goals and objectives of the criminal justice and prison systems that such prevention requires. 17. The Subcommittee’s report thus has four main parts: the first reverts to the issue of the national preventive mechanism, which the State party has still not put in place; the second focuses on various aspects of the conditions of detention; the third deals with the administration of justice and penal policy; and the fourth examines prison policy. As there has been little improvement, the Subcommittee is of the view that these chapters address intrinsically linked structural problems and that analysing them together is likely to contribute to the prevention of ill-treatment. IV. National preventive mechanism 18. The Subcommittee notes that the State party ratified the Optional Protocol in 2006 and that, pursuant to article 17 thereof, it undertook to establish, within one year, a national preventive mechanism, which has not yet been done. The Subcommittee finds it regrettable that it was unable to meet with the members of the ad hoc working group on the national preventive mechanism, although it had made a specific request to do so. 19. The State party appears to have opted to establish its national preventive mechanism as part of the Benin Human Rights Commission, in part for reasons related to resource constraints. The Subcommittee takes note of Act No. 2012-36, the Benin Human Rights Commission Act, the text of which was transmitted to it by the authorities of the State party. It also notes that, under article 4 of this Act, the Benin Human Rights Commission is empowered to “conduct periodic visits, with or without notice, to places of detention or confinement in order to prevent all human rights violations”, a power that is at the core of the mandate of a national preventive mechanism. 20. The Subcommittee notes, to be sure, that the State party has linked the establishment of a national preventive mechanism to the functioning of the Benin Human Rights Commission and that the mechanism is to be established by decree, but the Commission is not yet operational and, according to the information provided by the authorities themselves and civil society organizations, it is facing a number of obstacles. These difficulties are, to all appearances, delaying the establishment of the national preventive mechanism, which is becoming a matter of great urgency. 21. The Subcommittee does not take positions on the advisability of establishing a national preventive mechanism that is a separate body or part of a national human rights institution. It notes, however, that the provisions of article 4 of the Benin Human Rights 4 GE.18-16165