CAT/OP/GBR/RONPM/1 Relationship between the national preventive mechanism and civil society organizations 73. Communication and collaboration between national preventive mechanisms and civil society organizations is crucial in torture prevention. Bearing this in mind, the Subcommittee recommended that national preventive mechanisms establish sustainable lines of communication with such organizations.22 Similarly, the reference to the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles) in article 18 of Optional Protocol indicates that national preventive mechanisms are to maintain good relationships with other bodies, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). 74. The Subcommittee is concerned that at the meetings held with civil society organizations some representatives expressed dissatisfaction with the current level of cooperation with the national preventive mechanism. Moreover, in the meeting of the Subcommittee with national preventive mechanism bodies, representatives of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and the Children’s Commissioner for England alluded to the need to keep distance to ensure the independence of the work of the national preventive mechanism. The mechanism’s secretariat, however, admitted that the mechanism’s collaboration with NGOs could be improved, but argued that the current level of collaboration is a reflection of a lack of funds. 75. The Subcommittee emphasizes the knowledge that civil society organizations have of places of deprivation of liberty. Such organizations include victims’ associations, academic institutions and medical and bar associations, in addition to NGOs. They also fulfil an important role in scrutinizing the ways in which a national preventive mechanism conducts its work. 76. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism of the United Kingdom take steps to enhance its cooperation and channels of communication with civil society organizations, through an annual forum or other avenues, and strive to maintain a proactive dialogue with civil society. Regarding concerns expressed by the mechanism, the Subcommittee recommends that the mechanism involve NGOs in its work in a transparent manner and strictly from the perspective of prevention of torture. F. Methodology 77. The Subcommittee observed that the national preventive mechanism’s professional inspectorates and the volunteer bodies are well regarded and influential. Their work is well structured, evidence based and grounded in protocols, surveys, and interviews with persons deprived of liberty and with staff in charge of custodial settings. 78. The Subcommittee also wishes to acknowledge the comprehensive monitoring carried out by the national preventive mechanism as a whole. The Subcommittee recognizes that unannounced, frequent and unhindered visits to places of deprivation of liberty by the large number of institutions composing the mechanism do have a positive and durable impact on preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 1. Preventive focus of national preventive mechanism work 79. The Subcommittee considers that monitoring visits carried out by national preventive mechanism bodies are being largely geared towards needs assessments of persons deprived of liberty, and aimed at ensuring that places of deprivation of liberty, including psychiatric facilities, comply with the existing national standards. In this connection, the Subcommittee believes that the preventive focus of visits conducted by the mechanism to places of deprivation of liberty must be strengthened. This is particularly relevant for those bodies of the mechanism that combine preventive and regulatory mandates (the Care Quality Commission and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills). 22 14 Analytical self-assessment tool for national preventive mechanisms, paras. 13 and 36.