1. REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM 1.1.  PREVENTIVE VISITS In 2014 overall 24 planned and 364 ad hoc visits to the penitentiary institutions were conducted following individual applications. In total 3 040 prisoners were visited and interviewed by the special preventive group. 28 planned visits to the police stations and temporary detention isolators, 3 planned visits to the psychiatric institutions and 44 planned visits to the small family-type homes for children were also carried out. For the first time, the joint return operation flight (Tbilisi – Paris – Warsaw – Tbilisi) was attended and monitored and the vehicles for transportation of prisoners were inspected. Since 1 October 2014 the Department of Prevention and Monitoring at the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia no longer deals with individual applications/complaints and is primarily focused on preventive monitoring, which is fully in line with the Guidelines on National Preventive Mechanism issued by the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (hereinafter referred to as “SPT”). The individual applications received from the places of deprivation of liberty are now reviewed by the Criminal Justice Department of the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia. 1.2.  COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS In compliance with its mandate the National Preventive Mechanism (hereinafter referred to as “NPM”) gives due consideration to the need for maintaining good communication with stakeholders. It sees it rather impossible to carry out inspection, draft recommendations and consequently advocate for and follow up the fulfillment of recommendations without engaging in the dialogue with civil society, international organizations, relevant authorities and all other stakeholders. In this regard, various activities were carried out in 2014. 1.2.1.  DIALOGUE WITH RELEVANT AUTHORITIES During the reporting period, the NPM maintained active communication and engaged in dialogue with relevant authorities. Meetings were held both individually and within various working groups. Along that, in 2013, for the purposes of facilitating the follow up process, the Parliament of Georgia decided to reflect the recommendations of the Public Defender in its resolution and to request relevant governmental agencies to provide information on the fulfillment of Public Defender’s recommendations. By virtue of this initiative, throughout a year the Parliament of Georgia had remained to be a venue for dialogue between authors and addressees of the recommendations. To illustrate the process of dialogue several events can be outlined: NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 5