CAT/OP/KGZ/2 consult the administration, or be influenced by it, as to whom they should interview; this is at the sole discretion of the national preventive mechanism. The perception of guards regarding the dangerousness of the inmates should not discourage or influence the mechanism in the implementation of its visit plans. 64. The Subcommittee recommends that the location where the individual interview takes place be carefully chosen to ensure that the content of the interview remains confidential, meaning out of sight and hearing of any third party, so that the principle of do no harm is applied without exception. It should also indicate and encourage the interviewees to report any reprisal they might face subsequent to the visit and, if necessary, conduct follow-up visits. 65. The Subcommittee noted that the interviews took place in a very formal and rather mechanical manner and in an uncomfortable setting, which was not conducive to the creation of a trusting relationship between the members of the national preventive mechanism and the persons interviewed. In addition, scant information was provided to the interviewed person about the mechanism and the objectives of the visit, which can create unfounded expectations as to what the mechanism can do in individual cases. The interviewer should avoid informal contacts with detention officers, as it may affect perceptions of the credibility and independence of the interviewer and the mechanism. 66. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism conduct private individual interviews with detainees. The location where the interviews takes place needs to create an environment where the interviewee feels at ease; if possible, spaces familiar to detainees should be used. It is further recommended that the mechanism prepare a leaflet that describes its mandate and working methods, explains the concept of informed consent and provides contact information. Finally, the interviewer should always maintain formal and professional relations with detention officers. 67. The Subcommittee noted the excessive reliance of the staff on their checklists and questionnaires. While the checklist helps staff remember the objectives of the visit, strict adherence thereto is counterproductive and prevents the natural flow of conversation with the interviewee. Moreover, the Subcommittee observed that the content of the checklist was rather problematic, as it did not reflect key aspects of the mandate of the national preventive mechanism and focused excessively on the material conditions of detention. 68. The Subcommittee noted that on several occasions interviews had touched on matters unrelated to the mandate of the national preventive mechanism, such as the reason for the detention, requests for release or other judicial procedure issues. While understanding the difficulties in keeping interviews focused on the mandate of the mechanism, the Subcommittee believes the mandate should be the primary focus of an interview. To help keep interviews focused on the mandate, members of the mechanism should refrain from advising interviewees, offering to provide services and making promises that they are not able to fulfil as they do not fall within the prevention mandate. 69. The Subcommittee recalls that the purpose of interviews is to assist the national preventive mechanism in understanding the situation of persons deprived of their liberty in order to make recommendations to prevent future cases of torture and illtreatment. Should other issues arise during the course of interviews, the monitoring team should draw the attention of detainees to the appropriate means and mechanisms of addressing such issues, but not seek to address those issues themselves, as the role of the mechanism is strictly prevention. The Subcommittee also reminds the mechanism that the reliance on standardized forms and questionnaires should be minimized, as systematic use of standardized checklists and forms can prevent the specificities of each case from being taken into account. 70. The Subcommittee recommends that the management of the national preventive mechanism ensure that all staff in charge of preventive visits have received specific training on interviewing techniques and ascertain that persons who conduct interviews have fully assimilated the training and have, for example, passed a mock evaluation. 12