CAT/C/40/2 page 7 in protection exist and which safeguards require strengthening. The Subcommittee’s preventive approach is forward-looking. In examining examples of both good and bad practice, the Subcommittee seeks to build upon existing protections and to eliminate or reduce to a minimum the possibilities for abuse. 13. The Subcommittee is required to observe confidentiality in its preventive work and looks forward to cooperating with all States parties to the Optional Protocol in strict confidentiality and with a shared commitment to improving the safeguards for prevention of all forms of ill-treatment of people deprived of their liberty. III. VISITS BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE A. Establishing the programme of visits 14. During its first year, the Subcommittee carried out two visits as part of its initial phase of preventive work. The initial programme of visits was sui generis, as the Subcommittee was obliged under the Optional Protocol to make an initial choice by drawing of lots for States to be visited. Maldives, Mauritius and Sweden were the countries drawn by lots. Subsequently, the Subcommittee decided on the States to be visited by a reasoned process, with reference to the principles indicated in article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The factors that may be taken into consideration in the choice of countries to be visited by the Subcommittee include date of ratification/development of national preventive mechanisms, geographic distribution, size and complexity of the State, regional preventive monitoring and urgent issues reported. 15. In 2007, the Subcommittee began to develop its approach to the strategic planning of its visit programme in relation to the existing 34 States parties. The Subcommittee took the view that, after the initial period of its development, the visits programme in the medium term should be based on the idea of eight visits per 12-month period. This annual rate of visits is based on the conclusion that, to visit States parties effectively in order to prevent ill-treatment, the Subcommittee would have to visit each State party at least once every four or five years on average. In the Subcommittee’s view, less frequent visits could jeopardize the effective monitoring of how national preventive mechanisms fulfilled their role and the protection afforded to persons deprived of liberty. With 34 States parties, this means that the Subcommittee must visit, on average, eight States every year. 16. In the initial phase of visits, the Subcommittee developed its approach, working methods and benchmarks, and established ways to work in good cooperation and confidentiality with States parties with whom it began to build an ongoing dialogue. It also began to develop good working relations with national preventive mechanisms or with institutions which might become them. At this stage, the secretariat necessary to support a full programme of visits was not in place. The Subcommittee consequently carried out visits at less than maximum capacity during the period covered by the present report. 17. For the longer term, the point at which ratifications or accessions will reach a total of 50 remains an unknown variable in the strategic planning of visits. Following that event, the