CAT/OP/POL/ROSP/1 25. It was brought to the Subcommittee’s attention that the mechanism did not visit all the places of deprivation of liberty as prescribed by the Optional Protocol. In this connection, the Subcommittee emphasizes that, according to article 4 of the Optional Protocol, the State shall allow visits to any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue or with its consent or acquiescence. Therefore, any place in which a person is deprived of liberty (in the sense of not being free to leave), or where a person might be deprived of liberty, should fall within the scope of the mechanism. 26. In determining what constitutes detention and a place of deprivation of liberty, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party adopt an expansive approach that maximizes the preventive impact of the national preventive mechanism. 12 In addition, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party ensure that the mechanism has the legal authority and practical capacity to access any place where it believes that people are or may be deprived of liberty, in accordance with article 4, as well as articles 19 and 20, of the Optional Protocol. 27. The Subcommittee also notes that the mechanism has mainly been focusing on detention monitoring activities during its first 10 years of operation, having carried out around 1,000 monitoring visits in that period. However, the activities of the mechanism should not be limited only to visiting places of detention. Among other functions, the mechanism needs to have the legal competence to submit proposals and observations concerning relevant draft legislation. 28. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party ensure through legal and financial measures that the mechanism focuses not only on visiting places of deprivation of liberty but also on other preventive activities, such as commenting on draft legislation, awareness-raising and training activities, in accordance with articles 4 and 19 of the Optional Protocol. 29. 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 they had access to all the premises and information they requested. 30. The meetings held by the Subcommittee with some of the relevant authorities revealed, however, that the mechanism lacked visibility and a lack of understanding of its role vis-àvis the office of the ombudsperson. The Subcommittee also 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, civil society actors and the general public. 31. In addition, the Subcommittee observed a general lack of awareness of the reports produced by the mechanism, particularly with regard to the implementation recommendations contained in the mechanism reports by the authorities. 32. In this connection, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party enter into a continuous dialogue with the mechanism, with a view to implementing the recommendations of the mechanism to improve the treatment and the conditions of persons deprived of their liberty, and to prevent torture and other ill-treatment or punishment. The recommendations should be thoroughly discussed and addressed with relevant stakeholders in accordance with article 19 of the Optional Protocol. 33. The Subcommittee further recommends that the State party take immediate initiatives to increase the visibility of the mechanism, including through activities that raise awareness of the Optional Protocol and the mechanism’s mandate. The State party must include the mechanism in the legislative processes and advocacy, which mechanisms are encouraged to undertake under article 19 of the Optional Protocol. Doing so improves prevention of torture and increases the overall visibility of the mechanism. The Subcommittee further recommends that the State party: (a) take steps to assist the mechanism in making its mandate and its work better known, and thus more visible to the general public; (b) ensure that the mechanism is recognized as a key component of the country’s system for preventing torture and ill-treatment; (c) contribute to making the work of the mechanism more visible by, for example, organizing awareness-raising campaigns and other promotional activities, including the 12 6 CAT/C/57/4, annex, paras. 1–3.