43. The Subcommittee continued its cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and joined him, along with the Committee against Torture and the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, in issuing a statement on the occasion of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture on 26 June 2012. 44.The Subcommittee continued its cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2.Cooperation with other relevant international organizations 45.The Subcommittee continued its cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, particularly in the context of its field visits. 46.The Subcommittee is pleased to have begun, during the reporting period, a process of cooperation with OIF by meeting during a plenary session at its sixteenth session. A total of 33 States parties and 11 signatories of the Optional Protocol are members of OIF, and this provides a solid basis for cooperation under the main pillar of the Subcommittee’s activities. In 2012, a Subcommittee member participated in the selection of projects to be financed by the OIF aimed at combating and preventing torture. B.Regional cooperation 47.Through its focal points for liaison and coordination with regional bodies, the Subcommittee continued its cooperation with other relevant partners in the field of torture prevention, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the European Commission and ODIHR-OSCE. C.Civil society 48.The Subcommittee has continued to benefit from the essential support of civil society actors, and in particular the Optional Protocol Contact Network (which contributed to each of the Subcommittee’s sessions in the reporting period), and academic institutions (including the Human Rights Implementation Centre and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute). It would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their work in promoting the Optional Protocol and in supporting the Subcommittee in its activities. The Subcommittee would like to express its particular thanks to APT for its support, including its assistance in the organization of the training workshop at the seventeenth session of the Subcommittee. IV.Issues of note arising from the work of the Subcommittee during the period under review A.Development of the Subcommittee’s working practices 1.Visiting programme 49.To date the majority of the Subcommittee visits, in accordance with its mandate under article 11 (a) of the Optional Protocol, have largely taken the form of “regular visits” to States parties, with one follow-up visit also having been undertaken. Such visits are an important part of the Subcommittee’s mandate, but they do not necessarily provide adequate opportunities for the Subcommittee to fulfil its mandate under article 11 (b) in relation to NPMs. 50.In order to address this gap, to ensure optimal engagement with all aspects of its mandate, and to make the best use of its expanded membership and expertise, the Subcommittee decided that, in addition to regular and follow-up visits, its annual visiting programme should include a new form of visit focused on engaging with issues concerning the NPM: “NPM advisory visits”. The Subcommittee has developed a new methodology for these visits. 51.During the year in review, three NPM advisory visits were included in the visiting programme. The choice of visits was decided by Subcommittee members after considering the date of ratification of the Optional Protocol by the State; its practice regarding the establishment and development of NPMs, geographic distribution, and size and complexity; preventive monitoring at the regional level; and any specific or urgent issues which might bear upon the positive impact of such a visit, in addition to the possibility of combining visits for practical and budgetary purposes. During its NPM advisory visits the Subcommittee does not visit places of detention on the basis of its own visiting mandate, although it might do so at the invitation of the NPM, in accordance with the normal working practices of the NPM. 52.Following its regular and follow-up visits, the Subcommittee issues confidential reports to States parties. Where the Subcommittee conducts an NPM advisory visit, the Subcommittee will issue two reports: one to the NPM and another to the State party, each of which is confidential to the recipient in accordance with the provisions and approach set out in the Optional Protocol. Both of these reports can, however, be made public with the consent of the recipient as is the case with any other report of Subcommittee. 53.One of the benefits of this new approach is that it will enable the Subcommittee to undertake more visits than in previous years through a combination of regular visits, NPM advisory visits and follow-up visits. It will thereby enable the Subcommittee to fulfil its overall mandate in a universal, non-discriminatory and non-selective fashion. In addition, fiscal constraints and the challenges posed by the secretariat being understaffed – which remain obstacles to the Subcommittee fulfilling its mandate – support this increasingly targeted approach to its work. 2. A ctivities relating to national preventive mechanisms, outside of the v isiting p rogramme