CAT/OP/ECU/2 34. The Subcommittee noted that the authorities were unaware of the recommendations made by the national preventive mechanism, with the exception of the directors of the places of deprivation of liberty that were visited, with whom the national preventive mechanism appears to have established a good cooperative relationship. The national preventive mechanism informed the Subcommittee that it has prepared 17 reports on its visits to places of deprivation of liberty. However, these reports have not been published because the approval of the Ministry of Justice, which administers the centres in question, had not been forthcoming. 35. During its last meeting with the authorities, and in the presence of the national preventive mechanism, the Subcommittee emphasized that the mechanism’s reports are key instruments of dialogue and cooperation. If the relevant authorities and institutions do not respond to the reports within a reasonable time frame and the reports are not published, the mechanism’s preventive function cannot be fulfilled and its visibility suffers. The Subcommittee also emphasized that the authorities should take steps to ensure that, as a rule, the reports of the national preventive mechanism are published, with recourse to confidentiality being the exception. 36. The Subcommittee recalls that the principle of confidentiality set forth in the Optional Protocol applies only to the activities of the Subcommittee, not to the activities of national preventive mechanisms. The Subcommittee therefore recommends that the publication of the national preventive mechanism’s visit reports should be a matter of course, and that reports should be deemed to be confidential in exceptional cases only. The national preventive mechanism should therefore design a strategy for making use of its visit reports based on a serious consideration of the value of publishing all or part of such reports, as appropriate. Multidisciplinary approach 37. At the time of the visit of the Subcommittee, the national preventive mechanism was staffed by five professionals (a lawyer, a social worker, two psychologists and a person in charge of international relations). At times, the doctor on the staff of the Office of the Ombudsman or staff from the Directorate-General for Protection of the Ombudsman’s Office might accompany staff from the preventive mechanism on visits to centres of deprivation of liberty. Members of the national preventive mechanism spoke to the Subcommittee of the need to secure the services of professionals from other disciplines in order to enable it to carry out its preventive work effectively. 38. The Subcommittee wishes to emphasize that the State party, by virtue of article 18 (3) of the Optional Protocol, is legally bound to allo cate the necessary resources to the mechanism. It is important to bear in mind that, in order for the national preventive mechanism to be able to fulfil its functions, it needs to have a multidisciplinary team that includes professionals from the medical, psychiatric, legal and psychosocial fields. 39. Although the Subcommittee is aware that budgetary constraints have an impact on the availability of additional staff, it recommends that the national preventive mechanism diversify its staffing profile and explore the possibility of taking creative steps to bolster its human resources, such as the introduction of internship programmes or cooperative agreements with universities and civil society organizations. The national preventive mechanism and civil society 40. In its meetings with civil society organizations, the Subcommittee heard criticisms of the way in which the Office of the Ombudsman deals with persons 10/20 GE.15-11962