A/HRC/46/26 independence from the Government. The fact that, as a matter of diplomatic protocol, official communications of the Special Rapporteur are to be addressed to the serving Minister of Foreign Affairs does not prevent the ministry from transmitting the mandate holder’s observations, queries and recommendations to other relevant branches of government, including the judiciary, the prosecution and intelligence services, and from transmitting their responses back to the Special Rapporteur. Any other interpretation would effectively prevent the Special Rapporteur from examining torture and ill-treatment resulting from judgments, decisions and other acts or omissions by the judiciary, by the prosecution or by intelligence services operating outside the purview of the executive branch, all of which represent a significant proportion of the allegations received by the Special Rapporteur on a global scale. As a peremptory norm of international law, the prohibition of torture takes precedence over any contradicting policy or norm of national or international law. Therefore, claims of national security, secrecy, policy or constitutional order cannot justify any failure to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into allegations of torture or ill-treatment transmitted or to take the protective or corrective measures recommended by the Special Rapporteur that are required under international law. (d) Sophisticated pretence 72. Some States that are frequently solicited by the Special Rapporteur through official communications make significant efforts to give the impression of exemplary cooperation while at the same time de facto maintaining a system of institutionalized torture and illtreatment. Thus, while these Governments acknowledge the allegations brought to their attention and provide a detailed account of the investigative measures taken, the allegations are consistently deemed to be erroneous, false or otherwise unsubstantiated. While at first sight the normative and institutional framework appears to be exemplary, and investigations by trained forensic experts are conducted, these investigative mechanisms are often employed or otherwise effectively controlled by the Government, no genuinely independent national monitoring bodies exist, and country visits by the Special Rapporteur or other international monitoring bodies are not permitted. At the same time, independent civil society reports and witness accounts relating to the States in question confirm that, in actual fact, torture and illtreatment continues to be used with impunity and, in some cases, on a widespread or systematic basis. 73. The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to recall that the formal commitment of States to the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, as well as the normative and institutional frameworks, mechanisms and procedures established in compliance with these formal commitments, remain meaningless if, in actual practice, torture and ill-treatment continue to be employed with impunity. Like any other treaty obligation, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and associated legal duties must be interpreted and implemented in good faith and in line with the object and purpose of protecting the inherent dignity of every human being.15 Most notably, it is not possible to comply with the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment while at the same time maintaining governance and judicial systems based on intimidation, discrimination, violence and coercion. Without independent and impartial monitoring and oversight, and without the political will to ensure accountability for any act of torture and ill-treatment, no system of pretence, however sophisticated it may be, can count as “full cooperation” with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and, indeed, as compliance with the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. 4. Historical perspective and root causes 74. Already in 1986, the previous mandate holder observed that the universal condemnation of torture has, however, a remarkable side effect: Governments may feel hesitant to admit that torture has indeed occurred and therefore may be inclined either flatly to deny the allegation or to reply that alleged victims of torture may lodge a complaint with the competent authorities and that, since they have not done so, obviously the allegation is false. The fact that no complaint was lodged may, however, be due to other circumstances 15 14 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, arts. 26 and 31.