CAT/C/46/2 substantive aspects of the follow-up process are governed by the rule of confidentiality, excepting that the State party may authorize the publication of its follow-up reply. E. Developments concerning the establishment of national preventive mechanisms 20. Out of 57 States parties, 27 have officially notified the Subcommittee of the designation of their NPMs. Information concerning those NPMs that have been designated by States parties are listed on the Subcommittee’s website (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/cat/opcat/mechanisms.htm). 21. Six official notifications of designation were transmitted to the Subcommittee in 2010: Denmark (in connection with the Ombudsperson for Greenland), Germany (in connection with the Joint Commission of the Laender), Mali, Mauritius, Spain and Switzerland. It should be noted that, in the cases of Chile and Uruguay, NPMs that had been officially designated had not yet commenced their functioning as an NPM. 22. Thus, 30 States parties have not yet notified the designation of NPMs to the Subcommittee. The one-year deadline for the establishment of an NPM as provided for under article 17 of the Optional Protocol has not yet expired for seven States parties (Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Gabon, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Togo). Furthermore, three States parties (Kazakhstan, Montenegro and Romania) have made a declaration under article 24 of the Optional Protocol permitting them to delay designation for up to an additional two years. 23. Twenty States parties have therefore not complied with their obligation under article 17, which is a matter of major concern to the Subcommittee. It should, however, be noted that the Subcommittee believes that three States parties (Armenia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Nigeria) have designated NPMs, but has not yet been officially notified thereof. 24. The Subcommittee has continued its dialogue with all States parties which had not yet designated their NPM, encouraging them to communicate with the Subcommittee regarding their progress. Such States parties were requested to provide detailed information concerning their proposed NPM (such as legal mandate, composition, size, expertise, financial and human resources at their disposal, and frequency of visits). Seven States parties have provided written material on all or some of these matters.4 25. The Subcommittee has also established and maintained contacts with NPMs themselves, in fulfilment of its mandate under article 11 (b) of the Optional Protocol. At its eleventh session, the Subcommittee held a meeting with the Albanian NPM in order to exchange information and experiences and discuss areas for future cooperation. At its twelfth session, the Subcommittee held similar meetings with the German, Swiss and Mexican NPMs. The Subcommittee is also pleased that 10 NPMs have transmitted their annual reports during 2010, and these have been posted on its website. 26. During the course of the reporting period, Subcommittee members accepted invitations to be involved in a number of meetings at the national, regional and international levels, concerning the designation, establishment and development of NPMs. Those activities were organized with the support of civil society organizations (in particular the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims and the OPCAT Contact Group), NPMs, regional bodies such as the 4 8 For information thereon, see the Subcommittee’s website. GE.11-40683