-9ii) Ensuring the CPT's impartiality 18. The novel task entrusted to the CPT by the Convention (i.e. the visiting of places of detention in States Parties where, traditionally, these States have not allowed international bodies to carry out extensive investigations) has prompted it to strive to ensure that it is, and is seen to be, completely impartial in all its deliberations and decisions concerning such visits. In this regard the Committee has developed two important practices: one concerns the selection of the countries to receive periodic visits, and the other (made up of three distinct measures) deals with the role of the Committee member elected in respect of the country in which a visit is to be conducted i.e. the "national" member. 19. Concerning the first practice, it has been decided that for the first few years at least, the countries to receive periodic visits shall be chosen by the drawing of lots. This decision has not been articulated in a rule of procedure (Rule 31, paragraph 2, simply states that "Before the end of each calendar year, the Committee shall establish a provisional programme of periodic visits for the following calendar year. In drawing up this programme the Committee shall ensure, as far as possible, that the different States Parties to the Convention are visited on an equitable basis, regard being had to the number of relevant places in each State Party"). The practice followed is the result of a consensus reached within the Committee. Whether this practice will be retained even after the CPT has completed its first round of periodic visits to all Parties remains to be discussed by the Committee. 20. As for the second practice, relating to the position of the "national" member, the CPT reached the conclusion that, on balance, the participation of that member in a visit to the country in question would be disadvantageous. Although the "national" member usually has special knowledge of his own country which could be helpful to the visiting delegation, it was feared that his presence in the delegation could, in certain circumstances at least, give an appearance of bias. At first, this position was not reflected in a rule of procedure. In this connection it should be noted that when the Convention was drafted, the issue of the role of the "national" member was so controversial that it was decided to leave the question open, allowing the Committee to proceed on a trial and error basis. However, the above-mentioned approach was followed in respect of each of the five delegations that conducted visits in 1990. Consequently, a formal rule on the matter has now been adopted (Rule 37 (2): "The member of the Committee elected in respect of the State to be visited shall not be chosen as a member of the visiting delegation"). Of course, this provision does not prevent the national member from providing information and advice to the delegation while it is preparing its visit to the country concerned (see also paragraph 62). 21. Another measure taken to enhance the impartiality of the Committee is the decision that the "national" member should refrain from taking part in the vote of the plenary Committee on the report drawn up under Article 10, paragraph 1, of the Convention following a visit to the country concerned. The "national" member can, of course, participate in the discussion on the draft report, but it was felt that while he could be helpful in casting light on particular problems raised in the draft, he ought not to have a say in the final decision on the report.