A/HRC/18/24 explanatory comments, and the respondents were encouraged to provide details of their policies, programmes and projects to promote and protect human rights. 6. From the trends shown in the responses and particular comments from respondents, one can draw general conclusions about the core issues and capacity needs in relation to both institutional characteristics (such as legal framework, mandate and budget) and performance (such as resource allocation, working methods and relationships). A brief summary of the results showed that: (a) A large majority of respondents have laws, policies and programmes in place to prevent human rights violations. However, the implementation of these mechanisms is still a challenge in most States; (b) A number of respondents are carrying out activities relating to human rights education and research. However, many indicated a lack of capacity and resources to do so; (c) Most respondents recognized the need to improve engagement with vulnerable groups and minorities. C. Workshop 7. Building on the findings from the questionnaire, on 20 May 2011 OHCHR held a workshop exploring the question of prevention in the context of the promotion and protection of human rights. It was structured around two sessions, one focusing on civil and political rights and the other on economic and social rights, to allow for the findings relating to structural issues from the questionnaire to be explored in more detail. The case studies, which were presented from the perspectives of the State, the NHRI and the NGO community, focused on the prevention of torture and ill-treatment and the prevention of human rights violations related to human trafficking and migration, with regard to the discrimination component in particular. The workshop was attended by a range of actors, including States, NHRIs and NGOs. The agenda of the workshop is contained in annex IV. 8. The morning session focused on understanding the concept of prevention as it related to torture and other ill-treatment, with panellists emphasizing the role of the State in developing and participating in formal structures to address torture and ill-treatment. Central to this discussion was the exploration of the effectiveness of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, with the New Zealand NHRI describing how being the designated national preventive mechanism had worked in practice. All panellists agreed that an essential component to prevention was understanding the underlying reasons why the human rights violation occurred, and addressing them. In the case of torture and ill-treatment, it was argued that the structural areas that were most important to prevention were the legal frameworks, the political context, the organization and efficiency of the criminal justice system, and the independence of the judiciary. It was also noted that any situation that featured a total imbalance of power, such as during the initial period of arrest, police custody or transfers between places of detention, also carried a higher risk for torture and ill-treatment. In order to prevent cases of torture and ill-treatment, States must examine those areas and ensure that they are functioning in a transparent and open manner. In terms of creating mechanisms to support prevention, panellists recognized the value of the Optional Protocol as a formal mechanism at the international level to assist States with developing and ensuring compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It was recognized that a central component of the success of the Optional Protocol was that it was a voluntary mechanism that acted to support States to achieve greater compliance. A further success of the Optional Protocol as a prevention mechanism was that it acted across areas such as access to places 5