A/HRC/46/26 (f) The existence of national legislation, such as laws permitting prolonged incommunicado detention, that can have the effect of facilitating torture; (g) The threat of extradition or deportation, directly or indirectly, to a State or territory where one or more of the above elements are present. 18. The above-mentioned modus operandi of the mandate, notably with regard to actions taken by the Special Rapporteur in reaction to allegations of torture and ill-treatment and to urgent appeals brought to the attention of the mandate holder are described by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 43/20, by which it extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur; in the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders (Council resolution 5/2); and the Manual of Operations of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, adopted in June 2008 (see below). These documents have the aim of strengthening cooperation between mandate holders and States, and the capacity of mandate holders to exercise their functions. B. Purpose and scope of the report 1. Purpose 19. Since the creation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture in 1985, all mandate holders have consistently observed a stark contrast between the sophisticated international and domestic normative and institutional framework established by States for the prohibition, prevention, investigation and redress of torture and ill-treatment, and the continued practice of such abuse in all regions of the world (see A/73/207). 20. At the same time, mandate holders have submitted thousands of official communications transmitting individual allegations of torture and ill-treatment, visited dozens of States and drafted yearly thematic reports to draw the attention of the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly to generic and transversal topics and challenges of general importance with a view to achieving the universal eradication of torture and ill-treatment. Several mandate holders have also compiled reports with systematic observations on the follow-up of States to their official communications and, in general, have concluded that only a small minority of the allegations transmitted have been effectively resolved or otherwise received a fully satisfactory response from the State concerned.7 Moreover, some of the States most solicited by individual communications sent by the mandate holder, including numerous States that have issued a standing invitation to special procedures mandate holders, have consistently ignored, postponed or declined requests for country visits by mandate holders, thus preventing the Special Rapporteur from conducting an objective on-site assessment of their compliance with the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. This observation raises serious concerns with regard to the effectiveness of States’ cooperation with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and calls for an objective evaluation in this regard. 21. In accordance with this conclusion, 35 years since the establishment of the mandate, and mindful of the “need to be able to respond effectively to credible and reliable information that comes before [the mandate holder]”,8 the Special Rapporteur deems it timely to evaluate the effectiveness of States’ cooperation with the mandate with a view to ensuring the prevention, investigation, prosecution and redress of torture and ill-treatment. More specifically, in the present report, he aims: 7 8 See E/CN.4/1989/15, E/CN.4/1990/17, E/CN.4/1991/17, E/CN.4/1992/17, E/CN.4/1993/26, E/CN.4/1994/31, E/CN.4/1995/34, E/CN.4/1996/35 and Add.1 and Corr.1, E/CN.4/1997/7 and Add.1, E/CN.4/1998/38 and Add.1, E/CN.4/2000/9 and Add.5, E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1, E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.1, A/HRC/4/33/Add.1, A/HRC/7/3/Add.1, A/HRC/10/44/Add.4 and Corr.1, A/HRC/13/39/Add.1 and Corr.1, A/HRC/16/52/Add.1, A/HRC/19/61/Add.4, A/HRC/22/53/Add.4 and A/HRC/25/60/Add.2. Commission on Human Rights resolution 1985/33, para. 6. 5