CAT/OP/TUR/1 actively involve civil society actors in its work and does not fully benefit from the expertise of other bodies, such as the sharing of human rights mandates by the provincial human rights boards. 32. At the time of its visit, the Subcommittee observed that the mechanism had not yet produced an annual report. Moreover, the Subcommittee has received feedback that the authorities do not proactively discuss mechanism reports. As a result, the mechanism is not well known by government stakeholders, civil society and the public. 33. The Subcommittee deems it crucial that the State party first of all set out a clear and coherent vision of its approach to torture prevention, a vision that takes into account the best practices and other experiences accumulated by the various national bodies that monitor human rights and places of detention. This analysis should: (a) Provide a road map for how all such stakeholders can contribute to the work of torture prevention in the State party; (b) Help determine, together with the mechanism and relevant stakeholders, how overlapping mandates and duplication of efforts may be avoided, and which institutional configuration would be the most effective and efficient structure for the prevention of torture in the State party; (c) Clearly define the roles of the mechanism, public authorities, civil society and international cooperation and how they relate to each other; (d) Encourage and support cooperation and synergy between the various actors in order to enhance the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the mechanism. 34. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party: (a) Take steps to assist the national preventive mechanism in making its mandate and work better known, presenting it to the authorities, including those in charge of places of deprivation of liberty outside the penitentiary system, such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Family and Social Affairs, with a view to strengthening cooperation; (b) Reorganize the institutional structure of the human rights institution in Turkey in order to differentiate between the functions of its national human rights institution and its national preventive mechanism; (c) Contribute to making the work of the mechanism more visible by, for example, supporting public-awareness campaigns, producing and distributing materials on the mandate and activities of the mechanism in various languages to detention personnel, detainees and civil society, and by informing the judiciary, lawyers and the general public on the mandate of the mechanism. 35. The Subcommittee also recommends that the State party ensure that its national preventive mechanism is recognized as a key component in the country’s system for prevention of torture and ill-treatment. In this regard, it is recommended that the mechanism’s outward-facing role be increased, including its engagement with civil society and with institutions having related human rights mandates in order to seek possible synergies, including in the context of monitoring psychiatric hospitals, immigration detention centres, houses for the elderly and orphanages. 36. The Subcommittee encourages the State party to introduce, together with the mechanism, an institutional forum for the discussion of, and follow-up to, mechanism visit reports. It is recommended that the State party facilitate the publication of all reports produced by the mechanism and ensure that it produces an annual report that is translated and transmitted to the Subcommittee, bearing in mind article 23 of the Optional Protocol and paragraph 29 of the mechanism guidelines of the Subcommittee, both of which relate to the obligation of States parties to publish and widely disseminate the mechanism’s annual reports. The State party is also encouraged to reflect on such reports and to incorporate the issues they raise in its policy planning. 7