20.During the reporting period, the Subcommittee provided its own responses and/or recommendations to the replies of Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Lebanon and Ukraine; such responses had also been transmitted to Mauritius and Sweden previous to this period. All of these currently remain confidential. 21.The Subcommittee has so far conducted one follow-up visit, to Paraguay, with a follow-up visit report transmitted to the State party, to which a reply has been received. Both the follow-up visit report and the follow-up reply have been made public at the request of the State party. 22.The Subcommittee has transmitted reports to the NPM and State party arising from its NPM advisory visits to Honduras and the Republic of Moldova; the reports are still confidential, and the replies thereto are not yet due. 23.An innovation in follow-up dialogue occurred at the seventeenth session of the Subcommittee, when the Subcommittee held a private meeting with the Mexican authorities on the State party’s reply to the Subcommittee visit report. In the context of this fruitful meeting with a large Mexican delegation, the State party presented a supplementary reply which formed the basis of a beneficial discussion. At its request, the Subcommittee allowed the participation of the Mexican NPM at this meeting, enabling it to provide oral comments on the Subcommittee visit report, which had previously been made available to it in accordance with the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. E. Developments concerning the establishment of n ational p reventive m echanisms 24.Of the 65 States parties, 43 have officially notified the Subcommittee of the designation of their NPMs, information concerning which is listed on the Subcommittee website. 25.Twelve official notifications of designation were transmitted to the Subcommittee in 2012: Argentina, Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Ecuador, Hungary, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Togo, Ukraine and Uruguay. 26.Twenty-two States parties have therefore not yet notified the Subcommittee of the designation of their NPMs. The one-year deadline for the establishment of an NPM provided for under article 17 of the Optional Protocol has not yet expired for one State party (Philippines). Furthermore, two States parties (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kazakhstan) have made declarations under article 24 of the Optional Protocol permitting them to delay designation for up to an additional two years. On 9 July 2012, Romania made a request to extend the time frame for its obligation to establish an NPM under article 24, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol for a further two-year period. At its forty-ninth session (November 2012), after due representations made by the State party and after consultation with the Subcommittee, the Committee against Torture acceded to this. 27.Eighteen States parties have therefore not complied with their obligation under article 17 of the Optional Protocol, which is a matter of major concern to the Subcommittee. 28.The Subcommittee has continued its dialogue with all States parties which have not yet designated their NPMs, encouraging them to inform it of their progress. Such States parties were requested to provide detailed information concerning their proposed NPMs (such as legal mandate, composition, size, expertise, financial and human resources at their disposal, and frequency of visits). At its seventeenth session, the Subcommittee held meetings with the Permanent Missions of Chile, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru, as well as with African States parties to the Optional Protocol, regarding the establishment and functioning of NPMs. At its eighteenth session, the Subcommittee held meetings with the Permanent Missions of Cambodia and Guatemala on NPM-related issues. Members of the Subcommittee are also in contact with other States parties who are in the process of establishing their NPMs. At each Subcommittee session, the NPM task forces review progress towards the fulfilment of each State party’s obligation, making appropriate recommendations to the plenary on how the Subcommittee may best assist and advise in this process, in accordance with its mandate under article 11 (b)(i) of the Optional Protocol. 29.The Subcommittee has also established and maintained contact with NPMs themselves, in fulfilment of its mandate under article 11 (b)(ii) of the Optional Protocol. At its sixteenth session, the Subcommittee held a meeting with the Spanish NPM in order to exchange information and experiences and discuss areas for future cooperation. At its seventeenth session, the Subcommittee held a similar meeting with the Slovenian NPM. Finally, at its eighteenth session, the Subcommittee held a meeting with the NPMs of France and Ecuador. It should be noted that at the seventeenth session of the Subcommittee, the Mexican NPM participated in the discussion between the Subcommittee and the Mexican authorities in respect of follow-up to the Subcommittee’s visit report on Mexico (see chap. II, sect. D, above). The Subcommittee is also pleased that during 2012, 23 NPMs transmitted their annual reports to the Subcommittee. These have been posted on the website of the Subcommittee and reviewed by the NPM task forces. 30.During the course of the reporting period, Subcommittee members accepted invitations to be involved in a number of meetings at the national, regional and international levels, concerning the designation, establishment and development of NPMs in particular, or the Optional Protocol in general (including NPMs). Those activities were organized with the support of civil society organizations (in particular APT, Amnesty International, the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, Defence for Children International, the International Federation of ACAT (Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture), the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the World Organisation Against Torture, Penal Reform International, and the Optional Protocol Contact Group), academic institutions (the Human Rights Implementation Centre at the University of Bristol, the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute and the American University Washington College of Law), NPMs, States (in particular the Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations in New York), regional bodies such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, theCommittee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa,the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the European Commissionand the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (ODIHR-OSCE), as well as international organizations such as the International Organization of la Francophonie (OIF), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and OHCHR. These events included, inter alia: (a)February 2012: Regional consultation on enhancing cooperation between United Nations and African human rights mechanisms on