CAT/C/52/2 longer be Subcommittee members, it has become necessary to systematize the previously rather ad hoc approach to post-visit dialogue with States parties. The Subcommittee has therefore adopted, for the first time, a common system of nomenclature for each element of its written dialogue, based on the trilogy of “Report, response, reply”, thus abandoning the former terminology of “follow-up reports”. It has formalized the establishment of small, two- to three-member working groups in respect of each visit report, which meet each session and coordinate the Subcommittee’s response to replies received, as well as taking the lead in any other forms of engagement with the State party concerning the implementation of Subcommittee recommendations. Members of each working group evaluate the information received, assess the situation and propose recommendations to the Subcommittee plenary on how to move forward, such as through letters, invitations to meet, or other specific suggestions. That exercise has thus far proven to be fruitful in advancing focused, constructive dialogue. 3. Subcommittee regional teams 50. It had become apparent that, whilst it had originally been thought that the roles of regional focal point and of the NPM teams would be sufficiently distinct to justify differentiating between them, their work overlapped in practice. Therefore, to avoid duplication, the Subcommittee decided to replace those bodies with four regional teams, each led by a head. The size of the regional teams will vary to take account of the disparity in the numbers of States parties within the regions. The composition of the regional teams will be reviewed and revised on a regular basis to reflect changes in the Optional Protocol participation and Subcommittee membership. As an aid to communication, the membership of the regional teams and the allocation of Country Rapporteurships is available on the Subcommittee website. Further details of the work of the regional teams are contained in the summary report of the working group on systematic issues relating to NPMs (see paras. 69–71 below). 51. The Subcommittee believes that the changes to its working practices have allowed it to become more outwardly engaged, dynamic and responsive to preventive need, capitalizing on its pool of expertise and experience. It means that the Subcommittee is now able to undertake an informed consideration of compliance with Optional Protocol obligations by each and every State party to the Optional Protocol at each and every Subcommittee session, generating further action as appropriate. This depth, spread and frequency of coverage is unique within the human rights treaty body system, and reflects the core Optional Protocol principles of confidentiality, impartiality, non-selectivity, universality and objectivity, as set out in article 2, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol. 4. Development of Subcommittee position papers and comments on substantive issues 52. During 2013, the Subcommittee’s working groups on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and on reprisals brought their work to the point at which they would value comments from others on aspects of their thinking, as they seek to further develop and conclude their work. The following sections, prepared by the working groups, highlight a number of specific issues on which comment is sought. (a) Working group on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 53. The ongoing process of revisiting the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners gives the Subcommittee an opportunity to stress the need for this basic universal document to uphold and reinforce a number of key overarching principles. They are of central importance to the effective prevention of torture and ill-treatment and, in the view of 12