CAT/OP/MKD/2 regard, the national preventive mechanism could prepare a leaflet that describes its mandate and working methods, explains the concept of informed consent and provides contact information. The Subcommittee further recommends that the location of where one-to-one interviews take place should be carefully chosen to ensure that the content of the interview remains confidential, which also helps ensure that the “do no harm principle” is respected in all cases. In addition, the mechanism should also indicate and encourage those interviewed to report any reprisal they might face following the visit and, if necessary, it should conduct follow-up visits. It is further recommended that the mechanism prepare a leaflet concerning reprisals that can be distributed to those with whom it speaks. 38. The Subcommittee has observed that the national preventive mechanism tends to focus on dealing with individual issues or requests (such as the reasons for detention and requests for release) and the material conditions of detention and less on the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. As a result, procedural and systematic problems, as well as related substantive issues, do not figure prominently in its work. The Subcommittee recalls that the mandate of the mechanism differs from that of other bodies working against torture and is characterized by its preventive approach, which involves identifying patterns and detecting systemic risks of torture and ill-treatment. While understanding the difficulties in keeping interviews focused on its mandate, the Subcommittee reminds the mechanism that this should be the primary focus of an interview. 39. The Subcommittee recommends that members and staff of the national preventive mechanism undertake capacity-building exercises, including training on interview techniques, visiting procedures, the skills necessary to detect signs and risks of torture and ill-treatment and the Istanbul Protocol, to develop working methods and a comprehensive visiting methodology that will highlight institutional and systematic challenges, including those affecting vulnerable populations in places where persons are deprived of liberty. The Subcommittee recommends that rather than seeking to investigate or resolve individual complaints, the mechanism should advise detainees on how and to whom individual complaints should be addressed and seek to ensure the effectiveness of complaints mechanisms as a means of prevention rather than attempting to resolve such problems themselves. Debriefing the head of the institution 40. The Subcommittee noted that the national preventive mechanism did not notify the authorities of the institution at the end of its visit that any form of intimidation or reprisals against persons deprived of their liberty constitutes a violation of the State party’s obligations under the Optional Protocol.2 The Subcommittee underlines the need to always seek to protect those interviewed from possible reprisals, even when there appears to be little risk. 41. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism always consider that there may be a risk of intimidation, sanctions or reprisals and therefore take steps to address that risk. In addition to the precautions previously mentioned (see paragraphs 25, 28, 29 and 37 above), the mechanism should warn the authorities that any kind of reprisal is impermissible and will be reported, and that it will follow up on any such concerns in order to satisfy itself that if such an action has occurred, those responsible have been identified and subjected to appropriate penalties. The Subcommittee notes that initial introductions and debriefings (both short) go a long way to building trust and confidence and visits should be approached in this fashion. 2 8 See article 13 of the Convention against Torture and article 20 of the Optional Protocol.