CAT/OP/KGZ/2 56. The Subcommittee recommends that all members of the national preventive mechanism, including members of the coordination council, employees of the National Centre and experts involved, receive training on the methodology of visits to places of deprivation of liberty, including on planning and organizing a visit. 57. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism develop a targeted strategy for each visit. Such strategies should be based on the type and size of the institutions, knowledge of the seriousness of human rights issues and the mechanism’s ability to follow up on its recommendations. 2. (a) During visits Visibility 58. While noting that the authorities of the detention centre the Subcommittee visited jointly with the national preventive mechanism were familiar with the staff of the mechanism, the Subcommittee is concerned that the mechanism has not always made itself and its mandate clearly known to the authorities nor has it been clearly identified as the national preventive mechanism. The visiting team must be presented in a way that distinguishes it from the staff of the detention facility and from other actors conducting visits to places of detention. 59. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism clearly explain, at the beginning of every visit, its mandate to the authorities as well as its working methods, including the necessity to conduct confidential interviews. The Subcommittee is of the opinion that an appropriate and complete presentation to the authorities, especially on the mandate and objective of the visit, will contribute to the visibility and effectiveness of the mechanism. In addition, the visiting team should be clearly identified as representing the national preventive mechanism, by, for instance, through the use of badges or vests, and should provide an information leaflet to the authorities and detainees. 60. The Subcommittee believes that the personnel of the national preventive mechanism should at all times maintain a formal distance from the staff of the detention facility, despite their possible familiarity or acquaintance with them. This element of professionalism is crucial to the mechanism’s credibility and to gaining the trust of the detainees. (b) Interviews 61. During the joint visit, the Subcommittee noted that the members of the national preventive mechanism were not clearly identified as such, did not always introduce themselves to detainees as being from the mechanism and did not explicitly explain their mandate. The principle of confidentiality and the voluntary nature of interviews were almost never mentioned. 62. In addition, some “exchanges of information” with detainees, including introducing the national preventive mechanism members, were conducted collectively, in the presence of detention officers. The monitoring team had difficulty selecting interviewees and resorted to open questions, such as “Do you have any complaints?”, addressed to groups of detainees in the presence of guards from the facility. Moreover, on at least one occasion the members of the mechanism followed the recommendation of the administration as to what cells to enter and what cells to avoid. 63. The Subcommittee recommends that members of the national preventive mechanism introduce themselves to the interviewee with their name and the position they occupy within the mechanism. The interviewer should explain the mandate of the mechanism, placing particular emphasis on its preventive nature. The express consent of the interviewee should also always be obtained and it should be made clear that the interview is voluntary and confidential and can be interrupted at any time at the interviewee’s request. The Subcommittee is of the opinion that an appropriate and complete presentation builds trust with the interviewee and facilitates communication and information-sharing. Furthermore, the members of the mechanism should never 11