CAT/OP/DEU/2 frequency to all locations under the Federal and State’s jurisdiction where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, as provided for by Articles 4 and 29 of the Optional Protocol.14 50. The SPT recommends that the NPM develops collectively criteria for selecting the facilities to be visited that will ensure that all facilities are visited periodically over time. These criteria should reflect the type and size of the places of deprivation of liberty, and the nature of any concerns of which the NPM is aware, and include all forms of institutions in all geographic areas. 51. The NPM should plan its work and use of its resources so as to ensure that it is able to conduct its visits to places of deprivation of liberty in the most efficient manner.15 52. The SPT recommends that the NPM allocate specific tasks to its members prior to their arrival at a place of deprivation of liberty, in order to avoid any duplication and to enable them to cover as many areas as possible. It also recommends that the NPM choose specific issues to be addressed in detail during each visit. The composition of the visiting team should be such as to allow both general and specific issues to be covered and should include a health-care professional, preferably a doctor. 53. The SPT observed that not all the NPM visits were unannounced. Emphasizing the confidential nature of the NPM work as envisaged in the Optional Protocol, the SPT reaffirms that unannounced visits, or visits at short notice, are necessary to ensure that the NPM can form an accurate understanding of the experience of those deprived of liberty. 54. The SPT recommends that information about the NPM visits should be kept confidential, with a view to enabling unannounced visits to be undertaken. 55. The SPT believes that, in the medium term, it is important for the NPM to expand operational guidelines and handbooks that will provide a means of transferring knowledge when its membership changes. In this regard, the SPT welcomes the elaboration of a checklist for the visits. However, it observed some inconsistencies in the use of the checklist by team members during visits, noted that adequate answers to the checklist, including supporting documentation, were not always sought on the spot and that information was requested to be submitted later but without indicating a deadline. 56. The SPT recommends that the NPM develop guidelines for visits to various types of places of deprivation of liberty, including guidelines for conducting private interviews, as well as policies for dealing with vulnerable groups of inmates, and ensure that information from all available sources is collected. 16 The SPT also recommends that the team members of the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission seek answers to their checklist, including supporting documentation, during the visits. During visits 57. The SPT observed that members of the NPM gave good introductions to themselves and their work to the authorities in places of deprivation of liberty, although only the Joint Commission presented to them the information leaflet. On the other hand, it observed that the equivalent presentation to detainees and interviewees was extremely brief and that the principle that interviews should be confidential and voluntary was not fully respected. The SPT believes that an accurate, complete presentation of the NPM mandate and objectives 14 15 16 10 CAT/OP/12/5, para. 33. CAT/OP/12/5, para. 34. CAT/OP/1, para. 13.