CAT/C/48/3 of Bristol and Pretoria, and Arizona State University, the latter through its Centre for Law and Global Affairs at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law), both for the promotion of the Optional Protocol and its ratification, and for Subcommittee activities. IV. Issues of note arising from the work of the Subcommittee during the period under review A. The development of the Subcommittee’s working practices 38. In its previous annual reports the Subcommittee has noted that its limited membership and resources prevented it from developing all aspects of its mandate to the extent it would have wished. It is therefore pleased that its expanded membership now permits it to undertake a broader range of activities in greater depth than was previously possible. 39. As set out in chapter II, section B, in an effort to make it more efficient and effective, the Subcommittee Bureau has focused its internal operations on all aspects of its mandate outlined in Article 11 of the Optional Protocol. Led by the Subcommittee Chairperson, and reporting to the Plenary, the four Vice-Chairpersons now exercise primary responsibility for distinct areas of activity: Mr. Coriolano: National Preventive Mechanisms, Mr. Hajek: Visits, Ms. Jabbour: External Relations, Ms. Muhammad: Jurisprudence. It is hoped that this will aid external communication by providing clear primary interlocutors, whilst also streamlining internal decision-making and accountability. 40. In addition to the change in the modus operandi of the Bureau, the Subcommittee has now established regional task forces to enable more meaningful and structured engagement with NPMs. For the purposes of its internal work, the Subcommittee has divided States parties into four broad regions; Africa, Latin America, Asia-Pacific and Europe. Each of these task forces is headed by a Regional Focal Point, and is assisted by an NPM Team, which consists of members who are assigned responsibilities for specific countries. Each NPM Team is composed of a combination of Subcommittee members from within the region, as well as members from other regions. In allocating members to these NPM Teams consideration was also given to gender, experience, expertise, and where possible, a common working language. Further, the number of members in each NPM Team reflects the number of States within the given region, and the realities of Subcommittee membership and availability. The Subcommittee is hopeful that this change will make its work with NPMs more constructive and active. The teams will meet individually at each session of the Subcommittee, giving detailed consideration to the situation regarding NPMs within their region and advising the Plenary accordingly. 41. It was generally expected that an enlarged Subcommittee membership would result in its conducting more visits, this being the rationale for the expansion of membership provided for in the Optional Protocol. However, since financial constraints meant that this was not possible during the reporting period, and aware of the need to ensure that all members experienced the reality of the Subcommittee’s visiting mandate as soon as possible, it was decided to increase the number of members participating in each visit in 2011. Whilst this has been invaluable as a means of inducting members of the enlarged Subcommittee, it has presented real challenges organizationally and logistically for the Subcommittee, its secretariat, OHCHR and States parties alike. Since the resources available are unlikely to permit an increased number of regular visits as currently conceived, the Subcommittee is looking to identify innovative ways of conducting visits. Hence, the Subcommittee has decided that it will seek to undertake visits, combining these where possible, which focus upon the various aspects of its preventive mandate, so that 11