-6The interval between the end of a visit and the submission of the report currently stands at some seven to eight months - a slight improvement as compared to last year (cf. CPT/Inf (93) 12, paragraph 13), but still considerably short of the CPT's objective of an interval of no more than six months. Of perhaps even more concern are the difficulties being encountered by the CPT in keeping pace with the number of replies required to the interim and follow-up reports presented in response to the Committee's own visit reports. Replies were sent to the Austrian, Danish, Finnish and French authorities during 1993; however, in many other cases, the adoption of replies had to be postponed. The above-mentioned difficulties have their origin in a bottleneck of work at the level of the CPT's Secretariat, a matter which will be addressed later (cf. paragraph 19). 9. In the course of 1993, the CPT's reports on its visits to Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland were published, pursuant to Article 11 (2) of the Convention. Further, a number of interim (Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands) and follow-up (Sweden, United Kingdom) reports in response to CPT visit reports were published during the year. At present, of the 23 States visited in the first round of periodic visits, 133 have subsequently requested that the CPT's visit report be published; and it should be borne in mind that several of the remaining 10 States have only quite recently received the visit report. The CPT would reiterate once again its appreciation of the attitude adopted by those States which have agreed to the publication of the Committee's reports. 3 In alphabetical order: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.