Activities during the period 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2009 34. From 9 to 11 December 2008, CPT representatives held talks in Prishtinë/Priština, in order to explore the modalities to enable the Committee to continue its work in Kosovo in line with the Agreement signed in August 2004 between the Council of Europe and the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK). The CPT’s representatives met the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations in Kosovo, the Head of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo and the Deputy Head of the European Union Rule of Law Mission (EULEX). Under the auspices of UNMIK, discussions were also held with representatives of the Advisory Office on Good Governance and Human Rights of the Kosovo authorities. The CPT’s representatives had separate consultations with the Chief of Staff of the International security presence in Kosovo (KFOR) on the continuation of the Committee’s work with regard to KFOR’s powers to deprive persons of their liberty. Further information on the CPT’s activities in Kosovo is provided in the section “Publication highlights” (see paragraphs 70-74, page 33). 35. On 16 February 2009, the CPT’s President, together with the EU Special Representative in Skopje, met the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, in order to discuss the situation in the country’s prisons. Further information on the CPT’s activities in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is provided in the section “Publication highlights” (see paragraphs 66-69, page 32). Level of co-operation received by the CPT 36. The level of co-operation received by the CPT’s delegations in the course of visits has on the whole remained satisfactory and, on occasion, can be described as excellent. In particular, in the great majority of establishments visited, the delegations have enjoyed prompt access to detention facilities and to all relevant information. 37. There have once again been isolated instances of delays in gaining access to a particular place of detention, apparently as a result of inadequate information about the mandate and powers of the Committee. Problems of this kind are generally overcome without too much difficulty. The CPT wishes nevertheless to make clear that an outright refusal to grant access to a place of deprivation of liberty would be a gross violation of the provisions of the ECPT and constitute in itself grounds for making a public statement. 19