CAT/OP/CRI/RONPM/1 in prison environments, who would contribute to the fulfilment of the mechanism’s mandate. The addition of such professionals, who could work part- or full-time, would bring a more comprehensive focus to the mechanism’s visits and increase the relevance of recommendations made to the authorities regarding health-related aspects in places of deprivation of liberty. 18. During its visit, the Subcommittee observed good working relations between Ombudsman’s Office and the national preventive mechanism. Generally speaking, mechanism is an independent body; there were no reports of interference by Ombudsman’s Office in the fulfilment of its mandate, the allocation of its budget or recruitment and hiring of its staff. B. the the the the Visibility 19. The annual reports of the mechanism contain important information on its observations and recommendations to the State party’s authorities. The Subcommittee considers the reports to be an extremely valuable tool for improving the visibility of the mechanism’s work and raising awareness about prison-related issues. 20. The Subcommittee believes it would be advisable for the national preventive mechanism to make its annual reports more widely available to the public by inviting senior State officials and the mass media to disseminate them broadly. Greater visibility for the reports will improve civil society’s understanding of the mechanism and will give greater weight to its recommendations on major prison-related issues, such as overcrowding or the widespread lack of access to health services; in turn, this will increase the State party’s accountability regarding the findings of the mechanism and vis-à-vis society in general. 21. The Subcommittee noted that the mechanism is known and respected by key State actors, including the executive and judicial branches. However, the mechanism conducts its activities without involving other actors, such as civil society, the United Nations system or professional associations of lawyers or psychologists, resulting in a lack of visibility among these. This in turn means that intermediary organizations are not aware of the major issues relating to prevention of torture. 22. The Subcommittee recommends that the mechanism start to work more closely with the media and with civil society to achieve further recognition of its mandate and recommendations and that it promote information-sharing. By doing so, the mechanism will fulfil its role of disseminating information about issues relating to prevention of torture and other ill-treatment; moreover, it will gain greater visibility vis-à-vis a number of non-State actors that could help to raise further awareness about the importance of torture-prevention initiatives. 23. The Subcommittee recommends that the mechanism propose exchanges with professional institutions, such as those specializing in forensic or legal medicine; professional associations of lawyers or psychologists; and the United Nations system, including specialized agencies. These organizations can lend technical and academic support to the fulfilment of the mechanism’s mandate. 24. In addition, the Subcommittee noted that the mechanism has not successfully distinguished itself from the Ombudsman’s Office vis-à-vis some institutions. Specifically, the mechanism has not developed a sufficiently effective strategy to distinguish the methodology for its visits to places of deprivation of liberty from those of the Ombudsman’s Office. As a result, it has an extremely low profile in the eyes of persons deprived of their liberty and the public at large. In most of the facilities visited by the Subcommittee, the persons deprived of their liberty were not familiar with the national preventive mechanism or its mandate, or they confused it with the Ombudsman’s Office. The Subcommittee finds it regrettable that, despite its legally recognized independence, the mechanism is not sufficiently known and has not distinguished itself effectively from the Ombudsman’s Office among persons deprived of their liberty. GE.19-21442 5