General Report of the CPT, 2011-2012 49. When appropriate, the attention of the persons who sent the communication is drawn to an independent body at national level which could examine the matter raised, and that body might be an NPM. The question has been raised whether the CPT should not itself take the initiative to transmit individual communications to the relevant NPM (save for those cases when from the content of the communication, it is clear that this would be contrary to the wishes of the person concerned). This question will most likely be answered on a country by country basis, in the light, inter alia, of the relationship that is gradually developed between the CPT and each NPM. Simultaneous membership of the CPT and an NPM 50. Within the CPT, there are now several members who are members of and even heading the NPM in their country. The question has been raised whether this does not involve a conflict of interest. For its part, the CPT does not see this situation as problematic, provided that the NPM concerned is OPCAT-compliant and, in particular, enjoys functional independence. It should be emphasised in this regard that a CPT member does not play an active role in relation to the Committee’s activities in the country in respect of which he/she has been elected. More specifically, a CPT member never takes part in a visit by the Committee to that country, and he/she does not intervene in the subsequent discussion of the draft visit report. 51. In addition, the CPT derives considerable benefit from the expertise of members with NPM experience when assessing the situation in other European countries. Their presence enriches the diversity of views within the Committee and provides for a larger spectrum of professionals with direct knowledge of on-site monitoring. Joint participation in visits 52. The possibility has been mooted of NPM members joining the CPT’s delegation during a visit to their country, or of CPT members being invited to participate in an NPM visit. The CPT is not in favour of such scenarios. To begin with, the rule of confidentiality which applies to the Committee’s activities would pose significant problems as regards the participation of NPM members in one of its visits. More fundamentally, the Committee considers that to mix up the functions of national and international preventive mechanisms could prove to the detriment of both. The strength of the tripartite monitoring system (NPMs, CPT, SPT) now in place – the assistance and support that each part can provide to the others – lies precisely in the mechanisms remaining, and being seen to remain, quite separate. “United in our goals, distinct in our roles” should be the motto to adopt. 20