CAT/OP/POL/RONPM/1 assessment tool for national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/1/Rev.1). The Subcommittee recommends that the mechanism develop an annual plan of work, which should include all preventive activities. In this connection, the mechanism needs to formulate short- and long-term strategies in order to strengthen the protection of persons deprived of their liberty. 32. During the joint visits with the mechanism, the Subcommittee noted that the staff members of the office of the ombudsperson were well perceived by the police officers, and that the staff members had access to all the premises and to all the information they requested. In the course of joint visits and during the meetings with the relevant authorities, however, it was revealed that little was known about the mechanism per se. The mechanism lacks visibility and there may be a lack of understanding of its role vis-à-vis the office of the ombudsperson. The Subcommittee notes that there is very little knowledge of the mechanism among relevant stakeholders, including persons deprived of their liberty, public authorities and other State-monitoring bodies and civil society actors. 33. The communication and coordination between the mechanism and civil society representatives also needs to be improved. Taking into consideration that the mechanism only has limited resources and given the vast number of places of detention in Poland, the mechanism is encouraged to cooperate more often with representatives of civil society. 34. The Subcommittee recommends increasing the visibility of the mechanism as a body undertaking preventive work, including through activities that raise awareness of the Optional Protocol and the mechanism’s mandate. The mechanism should undertake activities to increase the awareness of the general public, and especially persons deprived of their liberty, about its mission and mandate, making it clearly distinct from the mandate of the office of the ombudsperson. The mechanism should also engage in legislative processes and advocacy, which mechanisms are encouraged to undertake under article 19 of the Optional Protocol, as this will increase its overall visibility. The Subcommittee also recommends that the mechanism engage in outreach activities and other events, as appropriate. 35. The Subcommittee further recommends elaborating and distributing additional materials on the mandate and activities of the mechanism to personnel and detainees in places of deprivation of liberty and to civil society at large in order to increase the visibility of the mechanism and enhance understanding about its mandate. 36. In addition, the Subcommittee recommends that the mechanism engage more directly and independently with civil society organizations, including, at a minimum, through the increased participation of civil society organizations in visits and internal training of the mechanism and in dialogues held by the mechanism with the authorities. B. 1. Recommendations on methodological issues relating to visits Preparation and carrying out of visits 37. The Subcommittee noted that the joint visit had been well organized: a detailed methodology had been prepared and shared with the Subcommittee delegation, and the objectives seemed to have been identified in advance. The initial and final talks with the administration of the police station were well structured and were conducted in a constructive environment. The mechanism handed out to the administration of the police station relevant papers regarding the collecting and handling of personal data in a professional manner. 38. The Subcommittee noted, however, that the visiting team had not actually followed the prepared plan or the methodology. The Subcommittee is aware of the fact that it was the first visit of the mechanism to this type of institution; however, the team should have spent less time talking to the officers and moving around with the whole team, answering questions about general issues that could have been clarified before the visit. Furthermore, the representatives of the office of the ombudsperson should have dedicated more time to conducting interviews with detainees rather than obtaining information from the officers. The mechanism needs to be more tactical and reactive in relation to the information provided by the police officers, such as about movements and transfers, and to take 7