In this context, NPMs should develop codes of conduct for visiting teams that include the following: uuaddressing detainees and staff; uuobserving cultural and any other relevant sensitivities; uuconducting individual or group interviews (including how and when to conduct such interviews); uuhandling security and safety issues; uuensuring confidentiality; uumanaging internal debriefings in order to coordinate and cross-check data collected; uuensuring that monitors do not exceed their mandate during the visit; uuparticipating in reporting and follow-up; uuclarifying the roles of external experts and other stakeholders participating in visits, including their tasks, limitations, output, and responsibility for keeping information confidential. Joint visits The Subcommittee encourages synergies and collaboration between NPMs and other monitoring mechanisms,48 as well as with CSOs, including the conduct of joint visits, when possible.49 Joint visits to places of deprivation of liberty should not be undertaken with law enforcement agencies or prosecutors’ offices, as they are incompatible with the need to ensure the functional independence of NPMs from States bodies. uuVisit reports Visit reports should be produced following every visit conducted by the NPMs. These reports should focus on prevention and identifying the concerns that exist, and proposing solutions in the form of practical recommendations. The reports should be prepared as speedily as possible, thus helping officials in charge of the institutions visited to make the connection between the visits and the reports. With respect to their content, the reports should be written to enable readers, including those unfamiliar with the institutions visited, to form a realistic picture of the situation. For example, in the context of visits to prisons, the reports may describe the places visited, giving details of, for example, the dimensions of cells, lighting, toilet facilities and ventilation, regime, and so forth. Visit reports should focus on the most important issues, that is the reporting of torture and illtreatment, gaps in policies, regulations and practices, and the appropriateness of conditions under which detainees are living, and should highlight any systematic lack of protection of detainees’ rights. Good practices should be noted and filed for systematic analysis. Cases of torture and ill-treatment should be analysed to identify gaps in the protection of persons deprived of liberty. CHECKLIST: ISSUES TO BE COVERED BY THE VISIT REPORTS ;; Concerns regarding the treatment of detainees, including cases of alleged torture and illtreatment ;; Gaps in policies, regulations and practices ;; Appropriateness of conditions of detention ;; Lack of protection of rights of detainees ;; Good practices 48 See, for example, SPT visit report Germany (CAT/OP/DEU/2), 29 October 2013, para. 21. 49 See, for example, SPT visit report Brazil (CAT/OP/BRA/3), 24 November 2016, para. 89. 26 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE