CAT/C/46/2 D. Issues arising from visits 49. The Subcommittee has reflected on the visits it has conducted during the reporting period and believes it worth highlighting a number of general issues which it has encountered. 1. Practical aspects of cooperation during visits, including access to persons deprived of their liberty, to places of detention, records, etc. 50. If the Subcommittee is to be able to undertake its visiting mandate effectively and efficiently it must have the full cooperation of the authorities. In particular, it is important that the authorities do all they can to ensure that those responsible for the day to day running of places of detention are made fully aware of the powers of the Subcommittee under the Optional Protocol in advance of its visits. The Subcommittee recognizes that it is inevitable that some short delay will usually be encountered when it enters a place of detention but believes that this should be measured in minutes, rather than in tens of minutes. It should not be necessary for the Subcommittee to have to explain its powers and mandate every time it arrives at a place of detention. Nor should it be necessary for those in charge of places of detention to refer to higher authorities before facilitating the visit. 51. The Subcommittee still runs into problems concerning access to persons deprived of their liberty, interviewing detainees in private, having access to registers, moving freely within places or detention and having access to any room, place, cupboard, etc. It is difficult to understand why this is the case, given that its mandate is so clearly set out in the Optional Protocol and explained at length to States prior to a visit. In this regard, the Subcommittee has found it immensely helpful when some of its members have been able to go to a country in advance of a visit for informal briefings. These have invariably assisted in identifying and resolving possible difficulties or misunderstandings which, in turn, have made the visits themselves more productive. The Subcommittee would like to undertake such activities prior to all visits if it were possible to do so. 2. Overcrowding and pretrial detention 52. It is evident to the Subcommittee that the overuse — and misuse — of pretrial detention is a general problem that needs to be tackled as a matter of priority. It creates or contributes to the problem of endemic overcrowding, which is known to be rife in many States parties. The Subcommittee continues to be bemused by the complacency which seems to surround the routine use of pretrial detention for prolonged periods and the resulting chronic overcrowding, and all its associated problems. It is no secret that this is a problem in many States party to the Optional Protocol. It ought not to require a visit by the Subcommittee (or by its NPM) for States parties to begin the process of addressing these problems, as they are in any case bound to do as a consequence of their pre-existing human rights commitments. Rather than wait for the Subcommittee to come and recommend the obvious — such as, that the use of pretrial detention be used as the last resort, and only for the most serious offences or where there are serious risks that can only be mitigated by the use of pretrial detention — there is no reason why States parties should not embark on such strategies immediately, thus giving life to their obligation to prevent torture. 3. Making safeguards real 53. Likewise, the Subcommittee continues to wonder why States parties should think it sufficient to have in place laws and procedures which provide for preventive safeguards but which are manifestly not respected in practice. Safeguards can only be safeguards if they are actually used. So, for example, the right of access to a lawyer or to a doctor is virtually meaningless if there are no lawyers or doctors to which access might be had. It is simply 14 GE.11-40683