CAT/OP/ECU/2 27. The Subcommittee recommends that, to the extent possible, the national preventive mechanism be represented in its own right at institutional meetings that concern its mandate so that it may bring to bear its experience and the preventive focus of its work. 28. The Subcommittee recognizes how valuable the work of the Office of the Ombudsman, its notable public profile, and its experience and infrastructure are in furthering the fulfilment of the national preventive mechanism ’s mandate. The success of efforts to achieve the Subcommittee’s objectives will depend largely on contributions from the Office of the Ombudsman and on its continued prioritization of prevention. 29. The Subcommittee recommends that the Office of the Ombudsman take appropriate measures to enhance the visibility of the mandate, specialization and activities of the national preventive mechanism so that other institutions and the general public are aware that its functions differ from the other functions performed by the Ombudsman’s Office. Dialogue with the authorities 30. The work of the national preventive mechanism in designing and developing its various methodologies and the many visits that it has undertaken to centres of deprivation of liberty since its inception do not seem to have had the desired impact, largely because the relevant authorities and institutions have failed to devote attention to its work. 31. Although the Subcommittee understands that the national preventive mechanism is unable to resolve extrinsic issues such as those involving political will or the frequent changes and rotation of officials in ministries and other institutions with which it should liaise, the mechanism could step up its efforts to improve its dialogue with the authorities. 32. Based on its experience in working with national preventive mechanisms in different countries, the Subcommittee has noted that, in cases where ombudsman ’s offices (national human rights institutions) have taken on the mandate of national preventive mechanisms, it has been difficult for them to build the kin d of constructive dialogue envisaged in the Optional Protocol because the authorities have been unable to distinguish clearly between the preventive and reactive roles of these bodies. Since the role of ombudsman’s offices involves taking a critical look at State action, calling attention to problems when they arise and processing individual complaints, among other functions, the authorities are often reluctant to cooperate, especially where ombudsman’s offices participate in judicial proceedings or are aut horized to bring cases before a judge or prosecutor where there is evidence of criminal liability. The Subcommittee is of the view that the current lack of visibility of the national preventive mechanism in Ecuador has a negative impact on its effectivenes s and on the extent of the attention that is devoted to its recommendations. 33. The Subcommittee recommends that the Office of the Ombudsman develop a strategy for disseminating information about the national preventive mechanism, both within the Office and among the relevant authorities and the general public. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism redouble its efforts, through awareness-raising and other advocacy activities, to explain how the fulfilment of its mandate adds value to the work of the Office of the Ombudsman and to clarify the nature of the principle that guides its work, which is based on sustained cooperation and dialogue over the long term as a means of assisting the authorities to make any changes required to prevent torture and ill-treatment. GE.15-11962 9/20