CAT/OP/GBR/RONPM/1 80. The Subcommittee brings to the attention of the relevant authorities the document outlining the approach of the Subcommittee to the concept of prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the Optional Protocol (CAT/OP/12/6). In that document, the Subcommittee explained that the purpose of national preventive mechanism work was not only to bring about compliance with international obligations and standards, but also to offer proposals, further to the monitoring visits conducted, as to how to reduce the likelihood or risk of torture or ill-treatment. In this connection, the secretariat should provide guidance to all members of the national preventive mechanism on concrete ways to strengthen their preventive role through, inter alia, training and the publishing of advisory guidance. 81. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism reinforce the preventive focus and integrate a human rights-based approach in its monitoring work, in order to contribute to systemic changes for the protection of persons from torture and ill-treatment. 2. Comments on the methodology of visits conducted by the national preventive mechanism and observed by the Subcommittee 82. In the course of its visit, the Subcommittee observed the methodology of work of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, lay observers, Independent Monitoring Boards, the Independent Custody Visiting Association and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland. The remarks and recommendations below are limited to the visits observed by the Subcommittee while accompanying these bodies. 83. Due to the history of individual national preventive mechanism bodies and the absence of legislation on the mechanism, the methodologies of monitoring and the outcomes of these activities vary from one member to the other. Some members demonstrate highly structured and detailed, evidence-based reporting, containing recommendations leading to follow-up visits and a continuous dialogue with the respective authorities, whereas others produce brief informative notes, fed into databases, discussed at the level of units. Some use long, comprehensive surveys on a case-by-case basis, and others develop sequential rather than continuous monitoring work. Some monitoring bodies carry out coordinated joint activities, building on each other’s mandates and competences, others work mostly on their own. (a) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 84. The Subcommittee observed representatives of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons conducting an inspection at Cookham Wood Young Offender Institution. The Subcommittee wishes to commend the Inspectorate for the following: (a) The visit under observation was carried out by a knowledgeable and professional team; (b) Interviewers established good rapport with persons deprived of liberty and staff in charge; particular vulnerabilities and the best interests of juvenile offenders were duly taken into account; (c) There was a strong and well-established visit methodology, with systematic data gathering, protocols and clear definition of roles and functions; (d) The visits were conducted for two weeks, following in-depth preparation, and there ensued follow-up on key findings and recommendations from previous visits; (e) There was a multidisciplinary staff at the Inspectorate; (f) There was close coordination with Independent Monitoring Boards, and participation of the Care Quality Commission and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills in the inspection, which reinforces the findings and reduces the burden on the administration of prisons, which otherwise would have to accommodate three separate inspections. 85. The Subcommittee commends, in particular, the ability of the Inspectorate team to analyse the implementation of policy on managing and minimizing physical restraint, through random selection of closed circuit television and body-worn camera footage. 15