CAT/OP/MKD/2 elaborating and distributing material on its mandate and activities in places of deprivation of liberty, to the relevant public authorities, civil society, lawyers, the judiciary and the general public. That should include wider distribution of its reports in general. The mechanism should clearly be identified as such in all its meetings, written communications with the authorities and visits to places of deprivation of liberty. A full presentation to the authorities during visits, especially on the mandate and objective of the visit will contribute to the visibility and effectiveness of the mechanism. In addition, the visiting team should be clearly identified as being from the mechanism, (for example wearing badges or vests) and should provide an information leaflet to the authorities concerned. B. Recommendations on methodological issues relating to visits 23. In order to advise and assist the national preventive mechanism on its task of protecting persons deprived of their liberty, the Subcommittee makes the following recommendations concerning preparations for visits to places of detention, the methods to be used during such visits and the steps to be taken following their completion. In general, the Subcommittee compliments the mechanism for its visit methodology. Prior to the visit Procedures 24. The Subcommittee notes that since April 2010, the national preventive mechanism has had an agreed methodology, but considers that it is not sufficiently comprehensive. 25. While acknowledging the challenges faced by the national preventive mechanism, as mentioned above, the Subcommittee recommends that it update its methodology to reflect current best practices, as specified by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). That could include how to conduct private interviews, how to deal with vulnerable groups and how to assess registers, when to conduct individual or group interviews, the handling of security issues, ensuring confidentiality, defining the role of each member of the visiting team and the handling of reprisals. 26. While recognizing that under its 2010 methodology, conversations with persons deprived of their liberty are confidential, the Subcommittee is concerned that the national preventive mechanism does not have clear guidelines for maintaining the confidentiality of conversations with detainees and other sources of information. The principle of confidentiality in relation to the work of national preventive mechanisms is outlined in article 21 (2) of the Optional Protocol, which indicates that confidential information collected by national preventive mechanisms shall be privileged and that no personal data shall be published without the express consent of the person concerned. 27. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism develop guidelines for maintaining the confidentiality of conversations with the detainees concerned and any other source of information, in accordance with the compilation of advice provided by the Subcommittee in response to requests from national preventive mechanisms (CAT/C/57/4, annex). 28. While the Subcommittee recalls that the State party has the primary responsibility for ensuring that no one who comes into contact with the national preventive mechanism suffers reprisals, sanctions or intimidation, it is concerned at the lack of clear guidelines for protecting persons deprived of their liberty against reprisals. 29. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism develop guidelines on reprisals, in line with the policy of the Subcommittee on reprisals in relation to its visiting mandate (CAT/OP/6/Rev.1), which could include an information note that could be handed out during visits and the appointment of a focal point on reprisals for each visit. 6