CAT/OP/DEU/2 II. Recommendations for the national preventive mechanism 8. The planning of the SPT advisory visit was a joint undertaking, as both the NPM and the SPT agreed in advance on the agenda of the joint meetings. Those meetings allowed the SPT to understand the achievements and challenges as well as the legal, structural and institutional obstacles faced by the NPM, along with its working methods. 9. During the course of the visit, joint site visits to two places of detention were conducted.2 The places of deprivation of liberty were chosen by the representatives of the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission. This permitted the SPT to analyse the methodology of the visiting teams of the two components of the NPM. During the joint visits, members of the SPT adopted a role of observers, while members of the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission led the visits. 10. In addition to visiting places of deprivation of liberty, members of the SPT held meetings with a number of Federal and State officials and civil society organizations to discuss institutional aspects of the NPM and its relationship with other bodies, without presence of the representatives of the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission. 11. The SPT welcomes that both the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission strive for a non-bureaucratic approach, making recommendations on specific concerns to the authorities responsible for the places of deprivation of liberty visited. It is also welcome that the relevant authorities appear to respond positively and implement the majority of recommendations made by the NPM. 12. The SPT also welcomes the willingness of the NPM to voice criticism and encourages it to actively look for solutions to complex issues such as preventive detention, detention pending deportation or application of solitary confinement. The SPT observes that the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission have, since their foundation, conducted some 98 visits of places of deprivation of liberty. However, some institutions including the houses for elderly could not be visited due to insufficient resources and expert capacity currently available to the NPM. This should be addressed. 13. The Federal Agency and the Joint Commission appear to have a great deal of potential as a NPM, which can be further developed if it is given the human and financial resources that it needs to exercise its mandate, to build its technical capacities, to improve the methodology for visiting facilities and to enhance the scope of the reports it prepares on those visits. 14. At the same time, the SPT noted the need for the Federal Agency and the Joint Commission to further elaborate a strategic development plan to reflect on their respective achievements and strategies to address the current challenges. In addition, the SPT recommends that both entities improve the preparations of their visits to be primarily unannounced and that they consider monitoring the material as well as legal conditions of deprivation of liberty since they are equally important. Accordingly, the SPT is of the view that the members and staff of the NPM should be required to review jointly their working methods on a regular basis and undertake further training in order to enhance their ability to efficiently perform, collectively and individually, the functions entrusted to them under the Optional Protocol.3 2 3 4 The national preventive mechanism visited the Federal Police Station in Mainz, under the Federal jurisdiction, and the Detention Pending Deportation Centre in Mannheim Prison, under the State jurisdiction. CAT/OP/12/5, para. 31.