A/HRC/46/26 of the United Nations” or “interference with national sovereignty”. Instead of addressing the allegations, they accuse or denigrate mandate holders as “so-called” experts; there have even been calls for them to be “held to account” simply for exercising their mandate in good faith and in often very difficult circumstances. 67. Should States have any concerns with the conduct of a mandate holder, such issues should be addressed directly with the mandate holder in the spirit of constructive dialogue. Otherwise, any direct or implied accusations or threats against their integrity and independence are incompatible with both human rights law and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. (b) Unsubstantiated denial 68. A very widespread pattern of “partial cooperation” with the mandate holder involves unsubstantiated denial, whereby Governments reject or dismiss allegations relating to an act or risk of torture or ill-treatment without providing credible evidence, explanations or counterarguments. At first sight, these Governments appear to be fully cooperating with the mandate holder, stressing their appreciation for the work of the Special Rapporteur and reaffirming their unwavering commitment to the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, often by reference to detailed explanations of their national normative and institutional framework. At the same time, allegations relating to an act or risk of torture or ill-treatment are rejected or dismissed as baseless, erroneous, malicious or politically motivated. While these responses may differ greatly in terms of form, tone and style, all of them ultimately fail to respond to the questions asked by the Special Rapporteur or to take effective measures of prevention, investigation, prosecution or redress as recommended by the mandate holder and required under international law. 69. International law unequivocally demands that States conduct a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that an act of torture or illtreatment has been committed, or is likely, within their jurisdiction. Without any doubt, allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur amount to such “reasonable grounds”, thus depriving Governments of any political discretion as to whether to investigate these allegations. Governments failing to investigate allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur, and, if confirmed, to take protective or corrective measures not only fall short of the standard of “full cooperation” set by the Human Rights Council, but also breach their duties of prevention, investigation, prosecution and redress under the absolute and nonderogable prohibition of torture and ill-treatment under international law. (c) Obstructive formalism 70. Another very common pattern of “partial cooperation” with the mandate holder involves obstructive formalism, whereby Governments decline to provide the requested information or to take the recommended protective or corrective measures on the basis of claims of national security, secrecy, policy or constitutional order, or on other excessively formalistic arguments. Most commonly, Governments may claim that they cannot interfere with or comment on an ongoing judicial or administrative proceeding involving the alleged victim, or that, as a matter of national legislation or policy, they cannot disclose the requested information. Other excuses may be that evidence provide by the Special Rapporteur in not sufficient to initiate an investigation. Here too, Governments generally try to reassure the Special Rapporteur through sweeping reaffirmations of their unwavering commitment to the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, including by reference to sophisticated national normative and institutional frameworks. Ultimately, however, they fail to respond to the questions asked by the Special Rapporteur or to take effective measures of prevention, investigation, prosecution or redress as recommended by the Special Rapporteur and required under international law. 71. While the Special Rapporteur appreciates the importance and sanctity of the national normative and institutional order, he would like to recall that, as a matter of universally binding international law, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, and the international legal obligations derived from it, are not limited to the executive branch of Government but apply to the State as a whole, and to all its public authorities and institutions, including the courts, prosecution and intelligence services, regardless of their institutional or operational 13