5 The CPT is satisfied that, in almost all of the above-mentioned cases, the delays experienced resulted only from inadequate knowledge about the facilities to be accorded to visiting delegations. Nevertheless, the CPT feels obliged to emphasise that to delay access to a place of detention in order to allow time to remove persons whom the authorities concerned do not wish the Committee's delegation to meet, would amount to a flagrant violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. 5. The difficulties referred to in paragraph 4 illustrate the importance of Parties to the Convention ensuring that detailed information on the CPT's mandate and on the obligations of Parties vis-à-vis the Committee reaches all relevant authorities, including at local level. The CPT would emphasise once again (cf. the 3rd General Report - CPT/Inf (93) 12, paragraph 6) that such information should also be provided to prosecuting and judicial authorities as well as to relevant health authorities (see also paragraph 15 below). As regards the former, certain public prosecutors and judges with whom CPT visiting delegations had dealings during 1994 clearly knew little about the Convention or the Committee. On occasion, this led to misunderstandings and delays in the carrying out of the delegation's task. 6. Finally, it should be noted that, in two of the countries which received a second periodic visit during 1994, persons in charge of certain places of detention which had been visited in the course of the first periodic visit claimed that they had no knowledge of the observations concerning those places which had been made by the CPT. The Committee requests Parties to the Convention to ensure that the contents of its visit reports are brought to the attention of all the authorities and persons concerned in an appropriate form. B. Meetings and follow-up of visits 7. The CPT held four plenary sessions during 1994. The Bureau also met on a regular basis, and there were numerous meetings of visiting delegations. 8. Ten visit reports were adopted during 1994: on the periodic visits to Belgium, Iceland, Ireland and Norway in 1993 as well as to Spain and the United Kingdom in 1994, and on the ad hoc visits to the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) in 1993 and to France (Paris), the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, and Spain in 1994. The average interval between the end of a periodic visit and transmission of the visit report remained at some seven to eight months. As the CPT has indicated in the past (cf. the 4th General Report - CPT/Inf (94) 10, paragraph 8), this period is too long. However, the signs are that in the course of 1995, the Committee will come much closer to meeting its objective of an interval of no more than six months. It might also be noted that two of the ad hoc visit reports adopted during 1994 (concerning France (Paris) and Spain) were submitted to the State concerned within two to three months of the visit.