CAT/OP/PRT/1 guidelines with a view to solving existing or potential issues that may hinder the mechanism from carrying out its mandate effectively and independently. The practical needs and the operability of the mechanism also have to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the simplification of the support structure of the mechanism has to be considered in order to make it more fully operational and effective. 24. The Subcommittee was also informed that the national preventive mechanism had some difficulties in accessing non-traditional places of deprivation of liberty, such as psychiatric institutions and social institutions, especially those run by private companies. In this connection, the Subcommittee emphasizes that pursuant to article 4 of the Optional Protocol, the State must enable and ensure visits to any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty. Therefore, any place in which a person is or may be deprived of liberty – in the sense of the inability to exercise freedom of movement – should fall within the scope of the national preventive mechanism. 25. 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 (ibid., paras. 1–3). In addition, it recommends that the State party ensure that the national preventive mechanism has the legal authority and practical capacity to access any place where the mechanism has information that people are or may be deprived of liberty, in accordance with articles 4, 19 and 20 of the Optional Protocol. 26. The Subcommittee notes that the national preventive mechanism mainly focuses on detention monitoring activities. Although the mechanism has the legal competence to submit proposals and observations concerning draft legislation, the Portuguese legislative bodies have never submitted draft legislation to the mechanism. 27. The Subcommittee recommends that the State, through legal and financial measures, ensure that the national preventive 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. 28. During the joint visits to Carregueira Prison and the Navarro de Paiva educational centre for juveniles the Subcommittee delegation was pleased to note that the staff members of the ombudsperson were well regarded by both the prison authorities and the detainees. The staff were observed to enjoy full access to all places of deprivation of liberty within the prison and had access to all information concerning the number of detainees and the conditions of detention. 29. The meetings held by the Subcommittee delegation with some of the relevant authorities revealed, however, that little was known about the national preventive mechanism per se. The mechanism lacks visibility and there may be a lack of understanding of its role vis-à-vis the ombudsperson. In addition, there needs to be greater awareness of the reports of the mechanism and, especially, of the degree to which the authorities implement the recommendations contained in the reports. The Subcommittee 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. 30. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party take immediate measures to increase the visibility of the national preventive mechanism, including through activities that raise awareness of the Optional Protocol and the mechanism’s mandate. Recommendations of the mechanism should be thoroughly discussed and addressed with relevant stakeholders in accordance with article 19 of the Optional Protocol. 31. The State party must include the national preventive mechanism in legislative processes and advocacy, which national preventive mechanisms are encouraged to undertake under article 19 of the Optional Protocol, as this will improve safeguards against torture and increase the overall visibility of the mechanism. 32. 6 Furthermore, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party: