CAT/OP/PRT/2 dialogue procedure between the NPM and respective authorities. Further to making the annual report public, the Subcommittee recommends that the report and the work of the NPM should be discussed publicly and widely publicized. 32. Following its detention visits, the Subcommittee is under the impression that some officials in places of detention were not familiar with the recommendations of the NPM after their institutions were visited by the NPM. Therefore, there needs to be greater awareness of the reports of the mechanism and, especially, of the degree to which the recommendations contained in the NPM reports are implemented. 33. The Subcommittee recommends that the NPM enters into a continuous dialogue with the relevant authorities as well as with other addressees of their recommendations, with a view to implementing the NPM’s recommendations. Following the transmittal of the NPM report, the mechanism should develop a strategy for following up on the recommendations and using the report as a platform for dialogue with the authorities of the place of detention visited as well as with the respective state or other authorities. 34. The Subcommittee further recommends that the mechanism meet with the relevant public authorities directly to discuss the implementation of its recommendations, in accordance with article 22 of the Optional Protocol. Finally, the mechanism should disseminate its annual reports, including by transmitting them to the Subcommittee, for the purposes set out in the Optional Protocol. Recommendations on visit methodology 35. Preparation and conduction of visits: During the joint visits to Carregueira prison and Navarro de Paiva Educational Centre for Juveniles the SPT was pleased to note how well regarded the staff members of the Office of the Ombudsperson were by both the prison authorities and detainees. They were observed to enjoy full access to all places of deprivation of liberty within the prison and had access to all information concerning numbers of detainees and conditions of detention. 36. The Subcommittee noted that the visits were well prepared, the objectives were identified in advance, and there was a clear plan how to conduct the visit. The initial and final talks with the administration of the place of detention took place in well-structured and conducive environment. Nevertheless, the NPM should dedicate more time on conducting interviews with detainees rather than obtaining information from prison staff. 37. Interviews: The Subcommittee observed that during the joint visit the members of the NPM sometimes introduced themselves and were often perceived as representatives of the Ombudsperson, because the latter is more widely recognized and better known institution. This may lead to a confusion about the separate mandates of each institution, by both detaining authorities and detainees. The Subcommittee also noted that the members of the mechanism were not clearly identified as such and some of them did not systematically introduce themselves to detainees as representatives from the national preventive mechanism and at times did not explicitly explain their mandate more concretely (including by making a clear distinction between activities and obligations of the NPM and those of the Ombudsman). In addition, some “exchanges of information” with detainees were conducted in the presence or in hearing distance of detention officers. 38. The Subcommittee recommends that all members of the NPM, including external experts, introduce themselves as representatives from the national preventive mechanism. The Subcommittee is of the view that an appropriate and complete presentation builds trust with the interviewees and facilitates communication and information sharing. In addition, the visiting team should be clearly identified as the national preventive mechanism, for example, by wearing badges or vests, and provide an information leaflet to the authorities as well as to the detainees. 39. Confidentiality and risk of reprisals: The Subcommittee reiterates that the location where the individual interviews take place should be carefully chosen to ensure that the content of the interview remains confidential and that the “do no harm” principle is applied, without exception. The interviewers should also indicate that the interviewees can report any reprisal they may face subsequent to the visit and encourage them to do so. If necessary, 7