CAT/C/42/2 page 14 46. The Special Fund to provide assistance to States parties in implementing SPT recommendations and to assist the education of NPMs (under article 26 of the OPCAT) is being administered by the OHCHR. The SPT suggested that an independent board of experts should be involved in reviewing applications to the Special Fund. The SPT has always been firmly of the opinion that the SPT needs to maintain an arms length relationship with the Fund in order to distinguish its role as an independent preventive mechanism from the funding of implementation of its recommendations. It was therefore pleased to learn that the experts on the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture (VFVT) have been approached to act as an independent advisory board to assess how contributions to the Special Fund might be used. 47. The SPT understands that thus far there have been generous contributions to the Special Fund from the Maldives and Spain. It is reported that in general States have been reluctant to contribute to the Special Fund until they know what the SPT’s recommendations are. The SPT recalls that its recommendations are confidential until the State party concerned agrees to publication of the visit report. Publication is therefore an important step in the process of obtaining funding for the implementation of recommendations. 48. During its plenary sessions, the SPT members discussed relations and attended meetings with other relevant United Nations bodies. In particular, given the complementarity of the SPT’s work and that of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the SPT has continued to maintain close contact with Mr Manfred Nowak and has discussed common challenges faced and methods of working. 49. During its seventh plenary session in February 2009, the SPT met with the Mr. Gianni Magazzeni from the Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division of National Institutions Unit to discuss accreditation of the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). Whereas the accreditation process is clearly seen as of value to by NHRIs, the SPT takes the view that it is important to distinguish between the general human rights mandate of NHRIs and the specific preventive mandate of NPMs. Accreditation does not automatically qualify an NHRI as an NPM. In the meeting, ways were explored to make clear the distinction between NHRIs accreditation and suitability of a particular NHRI for the role of NPM. 50. The SPT continues to be represented at the Inter Committee meetings of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies, which are a good opportunity to exchange views with experts whose mandates intersect substantively with the SPT mandate. There are points of common interest among the treaty bodies. The SPT’s work relates in particular to the mandate of CAT and the Human Rights Committee, with respect to the rights of persons deprived of liberty, and likewise to the work of Committee on the Rights of the Child, which includes the rights of children deprived of liberty, and to that of the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, as regards the rights of women deprived of liberty. The SPT has had occasion to cite the CAT, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Rights of the Child in its visit reports. B. Relations with other relevant international organizations 51. The SPT also maintained contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the two treaty bodies continued to maintain a positive dialogue on the many related areas of their work.