-8b) Working methods 13. In developing its working methods the CPT has placed particular importance on the collegial direction of the CPT's work and taken measures to ensure the absolute impartiality of all its deliberations and decisions concerning visits to States Parties to the Convention. It has also devised a number of procedural devices designed to promote the effectiveness of its activities. i) Collegial direction of the CPT's work 14. The draft Rules of Procedure prepared by the Secretariat, and modelled to a considerable extent on the Rules of Procedure of the European Commission and European Court of Human Rights, granted a major role to the President of the Committee. In addition to taking all important decisions when the Committee was not in session, it was foreseen that the President would also have the main role in the conduct of business while the Committee was in session. On the proposal of the President himself, the CPT instead assigned the task of directing its work to the Bureau, consisting of the President and the two Vice-Presidents. 15. In pursuance of this approach, specific powers of great importance have been granted to the Bureau. In particular, between plenary sessions the Bureau may request Parties to provide information or explanations under Rule 30, and may decide in cases of urgency on the carrying out of an ad hoc visit (Rule 32 (2)) and take all related measures (Rules 37 (1), 38 (1) and 39 (1)). Further, the Bureau controls the draft agenda of plenary sessions (Rule 15) and has the power to decide on the convening of an extraordinary meeting of the Committee (Rule 14 (2)). Moreover, the many proposals that emanate from the chair in the course of plenary sessions are those of the Bureau, not the President alone. 16. It might also be noted in this context that, unlike the position under the Rules of Procedure of both the European Commission and European Court of Human Rights, the President does not have a casting vote within the CPT; in the event of a tie a proposal would be rejected, even if the President had voted for its adoption. 17. There are two interrelated reasons for the strong emphasis placed on the collegiate direction of the CPT's work. First, the Committee deals with multi-disciplinary matters of considerable complexity and is called upon to make delicate decisions concerning co-operation with Parties to the Convention. It was therefore felt - particularly at the beginning of the Committee's activities, when teething problems may make mistakes more likely, and the risk of setting questionable precedents is greatest - that crucial decisions should be taken by the Committee as a whole or, when it is not in session, by more than one person. Similarly, since one of the salient features of the CPT lies in its membership (consisting of a combination of medical doctors, experts in penitentiary systems, human rights' specialists and jurists), it was deemed appropriate to put the direction of the Committee in the hands of a group of members so that the diversity of the Committee's expertise could be brought to bear on its decisions (the Bureau currently consists of a jurist with experience in the area of human rights and two medical doctors, one with wide experience in the field of the rehabilitation of torture victims, and the other specialising in forensic medicine and psychiatry with broad experience of the treatment of detainees).