4.5 The UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture’s relationship with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and NPMs The complex relationship between the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and between both international anti-torture bodies and NPMs, was examined in depth during the meeting in Prague. It was noted that of the 23 OPCAT members from the OSCE region, 20 are also covered by the European monitoring regime. A forum is likely to be held later in 2009 to discuss how the two bodies, along with other international organizations, will co-ordinate their activities. The European Committee has over 20 years of experience in visiting places of detention and torture prevention, having carried out 256 visits and published 206 reports as of November 2008, and it was pointed out at the meeting that the UN Subcommittee could benefit from this. It is likely that formal modalities for cooperation will be established in the future. One concern is that visits to the same country by the UN Subcommittee and the European Committee or other international bodies might occur within a relatively short space of time. Denmark questioned the real value added of being a party to OPCAT when its detention centres were already being monitored by the European Committee, although it acknowledged the value of setting an example for other countries that had a greater need to establish NPMs to strengthen their national monitoring activities. Also, the European Committee is scheduled to visit Sweden in 2009, despite the fact that a visit by the UN Subcommittee was carried out in 2008. It was pointed out, however, that the Committee had not visited Sweden for some time and also that the close timing of the visits by the two bodies could provide an opportunity to examine how co-operation would function in such circumstances. A key issue considered that affects the relationship of the UN Subcommittee and the European Committee with the NPMs was the sharing of information ostensibly not made public by the Subcommittee at this stage, and of visit reports in particular. Sweden, as one of the first states to be visited by the Subcommittee, is also the first country to have agreed to the visit report being made public. As all states, with the exception of the Russian Federation, have now agreed to the publication of the European Committee’s reports, it is anticipated that this may also increasingly be the case with UN Subcommittee reports for Council of Europe members who are party to OPCAT. The issues of publicity and transparency need to be balanced against confidentiality and, while it was agreed that publicity is an important aspect of prevention, it was also pointed out that governments may be more willing in some cases to change their policies in response to quiet persuasion than public condemnation. 42