importance of finding the right balance in the NPM, both in the legislative framework and in practice, between NGOs and the Ombudsman. This was a recurring theme throughout the discussions. Another issue raised was the absence of functional immunity for NGO members of the Consultative Council. The guarantee of such immunity is required under OPCAT for members of the NPM. The civil society component of the Moldovan NPM has encountered practical problems due to the fact that NGO members are not paid and expenses incurred in carrying out visits are not covered. The funding issue is thought to have contributed to the resignation of several members of the Consultative Council. The opinion was that there are likely to be ongoing problems for the participation of NGOs in the work of the NPM unless this situation changes. Issues were also raised regarding the threats to the security of members of the civil society component of the Moldovan NPM that could arise as a result of exercising their official functions. 35 One institution examined in the United Kingdom was the Independent Custody Visiting Association, which was formed in the late 1980s following the introduction of legislation obliging local police authorities to establish independent visiting of places of police detention. The Association’s unique feature is that all visitors are volunteer members of the public who receive special training in order to carry out their role. Volunteers have to agree to make a minimum number of visits per year. Another interesting model from the United Kingdom relates to the visiting of military establishments. This is regulated internally by the British Army, although there is also some external monitoring. 36 The Army inspects its facilities in operational areas that hold local nationals, currently Iraq and Afghanistan, every six months. The Provost Marshal (Army) is the competent Army authority on operational detention and normally attends each inspection. The inspection report is not in the public domain. Unit Guardrooms, which hold United Kingdom service personnel, are licensed every two years. The Provost Marshal (Army) checks the infrastructure and regime according to inspection criteria and issues operating licenses. These facilities also exist overseas. It was pointed out that the UK-based army detention facility had been visited for monitoring purposes by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 2002. One point raised during the meeting was that very few bodies in CIS countries focus on the monitoring of military detention facilities and, in general, there appears to be more limited expertise and coverage in this area than in that of detention monitoring of prison or police facilities. 35 Article 35, OPCAT, which states that: ‘Members of the … national preventive mechanisms shall be accorded such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions...’ 36 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons has been invited to regularly inspect the UK’s Military Corrective Centre in Colchester. 41