The Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) differs from other human rights treaties, especially because it follows a new approach by establishing a system of on-site visits as well as a dual supervisory mechanism, which consists of an international committee - the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture - and the National Prevention Mechanisms. The aim of this comment is to analyse these particularities in the light of the broader academic discussion on norm compliance. Furthermore, the effect of OPCAT's characteristics on the normativity of the prohibition of torture will be examined. The comment shows that the need for institutions and a dialogue between them is acknowledged by compliance theory and OPCAT's design and practice alike. OPCAT is one of the prime examples of how a dialogue can function between different actors, be they international, national, governmental, or non-governmental. Moreover, it is shown that OPCAT fosters the normativity of the prohibition of torture by institutionalizing dialogue and cooperation. OPCAT is an example of how compliance - as well as normativity - can be strengthened through smart legal design. Thus, OPCAT complements the retrospective and international approach of the United Nations Convention against Torture.