hope that these publications herald a new era in the co-operation between the CPT and Azerbaijan and that other countries, in particular the Russian Federation, will follow that example. On 13 March 2018, I participated in a thematic debate on conditions of detention organised by the Committee of Ministers. The objective of this debate was to enhance the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This was an opportunity to recall that the CPT should be viewed as an important part of the European Convention on Human Rights’ machinery aimed at preventing violations of the Convention by its States Parties. It was also worth reiterating that the implementation of the CPT’s recommendations may help member states avoid being found in breach of their obligations stemming from the Convention and may thus have a major positive impact on the workload of the Court, a great proportion of which deals with conditions of detention, as well as on the execution of judgments. Another crucial conclusion from the thematic debate was that member states should rely more on the Organisation’s “strategic triangle” (standard-setting, monitoring and co-operation activities) and possible interaction between the CPT’s work and other relevant bodies and departments of the Council of Europe. Despite ongoing uncertainties in relation to the human resources allocated to the Committee1 and the challenging budgetary context within the Organisation, the CPT’s monitoring activities have continued to benefit from the political support of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. On the eve of its 30th year of existence, the CPT takes this as a strong encouragement to work further, together with other bodies, such as those established in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, towards making the European continent a torture-free zone. As evidenced in the joint press release issued in July 2018 by the CPT and its United Nations peer, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, both bodies decided to reinforce complementarity and subsidiarity between them to reflect their respective strengths and added value. I should also stress that the Committee’s impartial and evidence-based approach has been very much appreciated by government and other partners, including parliamentarians. As one long-standing government liaison officer told us in the course of 2018, the increasing challenges faced by governments in the field of torture prevention makes the Committee’s work even more relevant today. Naturally, this has not prevented a few from questioning the CPT’s more unpalatable findings from time to time. The Committee is all too well aware that it may raise highly sensitive issues, in particular when it relates to the treatment of persons at the hands of law enforcement officials or immigration detention matters. The best ways of addressing these issues have always been through open dialogue, mutual understanding and strong co-operation. In contrast, making groundless accusations aimed at 1. Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2160 (2017) adopted on 26 April 2017, and Committee of Ministers’ reply to Recommendation 2100 (2017), adopted at the 1301st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies of 29 November 2017. Page 6 ►General Report of the CPT, 2018