CAT/OP/ECU/2 deprived of their liberty. Some participants claimed that the Office of the Ombudsman has kept silent about prison conditions and about the transfer of persons deprived of their liberty to the new centres. They also said that the visits undertaken to date by the Office of the Ombudsman to inspect prison conditions in the Cotopaxi regional centre were led by personnel of the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Religion and that the persons conducting the visits took no account of what persons deprived of their liberty or their families said and did not enter the cells. With regard to the national preventive mechanism, representatives of civil society organizations indicated that it was understaffed; that its members were inexperienced in conducting prison visits and in dealing with issues relating to deprivation of liberty in general; that a multidisciplinary perspective was lacking; and that it had a low profile and that, at the national level, people were unaware of its activities. The view was expressed that the fact that the members of the national preventive mechanism are part of the Office of the Ombudsman might compromise their independence because they are bound by the Ombudsman’s policy guidelines. Some representatives urged that these shortcomings be remedied by, among other measures, strengthening the administrative and budgetary independence of the national preventive mechanism, bringing on board doctors with experience in protocols dealing with torture and independent experts to go along on the visits, and ensuring broader participation on the part of civil society. 41. While some civil society representatives who met with the Subcommittee did not have a clear understanding of the work of the national preventive mechanism, others said that they were aware of the valuable work being carried out by the Office of the Ombudsman and the national preventive mechanism to locate clandestine clinics offering treatments to “cure homosexuality” and the work it was doing on behalf of irregular migrants illegally detained in hotels in Quito. The representatives of these organizations were nevertheless largely unaware of the regular visits to centres of deprivation of liberty undertaken by the national preventive mechanism and its reports on those visits. 42. Members of the national preventive mechanism said that meetings had been held with NGOs and associations of relatives on numerous occasions, but that those exchanges had become far and few between because the NGOs repeatedly failed to attend the meetings. The national preventive mechanism staff expressed discomfort with the vehement criticisms of the mechanism, which, in their view, were attributable to the fact that the NGOs did not fully understand the scope of its mandate and that some national NGOs had become politicized. 43. The Subcommittee recalls that the day-to-day presence of NGOs and organizations of relatives in places of deprivation of liberty is a valuable source of information which the national preventive mechanism could take advantage of in order to plan its schedule of visits strategically and to determine the extent to which its earlier recommendations have been implemented. In order to enhance the effectiveness of its work, the national preventive mechanism should cooperate with NGOs and other civil society associations that offer assistance, support or services to persons deprived of their liberty. If this is done and if a detainee then asks staff members of the national preventive mechanism for help during one of its visits, they can provide the person with the appropriate information. 44. The Subcommittee also recalls that, in accordance with article 20 of the Optional Protocol, the national preventive mechanism is entitled to have private interviews with whomever it believes may supply relevant information, including NGOs. By the same token, any person or organization has the right to communicate on a confidential basis with the national preventive mechanism without fear of re prisals. 45. The Subcommittee notes with appreciation the interest shown by the national preventive mechanism in strengthening its dialogue with civil society, GE.15-11962 11/20