CAT/OP/HUN/2 38. While the Subcommittee notes that visit reports are prepared and submitted to the authorities, it also notes that there is no clear policy concerning a systematic follow-up and dialogue procedure. 39. Further to making the annual report public, pursuant to article 23 of the Optional Protocol, the Subcommittee recommends that it should be discussed in the parliament in open session and widely disseminated. The annual report of the national preventive mechanism should be distinct from that of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. 40. The Subcommittee also recommends that the national preventive mechanism enter into a continuous dialogue with the relevant public and other authorities, as well as with other addressees of the recommendations, with a view to ensuring the implementation of the mechanism’s recommendations. Following the transmittal of the report, the mechanism should develop a strategy for following up the recommendations and using the report as a platform for dialogue with the authorities of the places of deprivation of liberty visited and with the respective public or other authorities. 41. The Subcommittee further recommends that the mechanism meet with the relevant public authorities directly to discuss the implementation of its recommendations, in accordance with article 22 of the Optional Protocol. The mechanism should disseminate its annual reports, including by transmitting them to the Subcommittee, for the purposes set out in the Optional Protocol. 2. Recommendations on visit methodology 42. During the joint visit to Budapest Remand Centre (Unit I), the Subcommittee was pleased to note that national preventive mechanism members enjoyed full access to all facilities within the prison and to all information concerning the number of detainees and conditions of detention. 43. Preparations for visits: Given that the year 2017 is dedicated to food and nutrition in places of deprivation of liberty, the national preventive mechanism should collect information regarding the topic from the appropriate domestic supervisory bodies prior to conducting visits. This would enable the experts to better understand the situation in the facilities to be visited and to ensure that appropriate preparations are made for visits. Should the mechanism members require additional data from the administration on places of deprivation of liberty, they can provide the authorities with a list of those data at the beginning of the visit, so that they are ready for collection by the end of the visit or for transmission via email. Such an approach would leave mechanism members free to carry out actual monitoring activities. 44. Interviews: The Subcommittee observed that, during the joint visit, the national preventive mechanism members often introduced themselves as representatives of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, because that body is more widely recognized and better known. This may lead to confusion among the detaining authorities and the detainees regarding the separate mandates of the two institutions. The Subcommittee also noted that the mechanism members were not clearly identified as such and that some of them failed to systematically introduce themselves to detainees as representatives of the national preventive mechanism and to explicitly explain their mandate (including making a clear distinction between the activities of the mechanism and those of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights). In addition, a number of exchanges of information with detainees were conducted in the presence, or within earshot of, detention officers. 45. The Subcommittee recommends that, when introducing themselves to interviewees, members of the national preventive mechanism, particularly the external experts, state their name and the position they occupy within the mechanism. The Subcommittee is of the view that an appropriate and complete introduction builds trust with the interviewees and facilitates communication and information-sharing. In addition, the members of the visiting team should be clearly identified as national 8