A/HRC/46/26 or risks of torture or ill-treatment, as requested or recommended by the Special Rapporteur (“full cooperation”). 100. Likewise, the vast majority of requests for a country visit submitted by the Special Rapporteur during the first four years of his tenure, including to States having issued a standing invitation to all special procedures, received either no response or responses declining or indefinitely delaying the requested visit, thus effectively preventing the Special Rapporteur from carrying out an independent monitoring visit based on the priorities and needs that he had identified. 101. More specifically, in the course of the past four years, the Special Rapporteur has transmitted requests for a country visit to 58 States, of which 30 had issued a standing invitation to the special procedures. Of the said 58 States, 33 (57 per cent) did not provide any response (“no cooperation”), whereas 13 (23 per cent) engaged in some form of dialogue, though falling short of granting an official visit by the Special Rapporteur (“partial cooperation”); only 12 (20 per cent) showed “full cooperation” either by hosting an official country visit or by extending a firm invitation, which the Special Rapporteur declined or postponed for reasons relating to regional or operational priorities. 102. The above observations raise serious concerns with regard to the effectiveness of the cooperation of States with the Special Rapporteur with a view to achieve the very object and purpose of the mandate. In order to reverse such a dysfunctional situation, which has been stable and consistent for 35 years, nothing less than a groundbreaking change of attitude and very serious efforts are required from all States Members of the United Nations. V. Recommendations 103. States should acknowledge that the predominant patterns of their interaction with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur clearly fall short of the standard of “full cooperation” set by the Human Rights Council; prevent the establishment of an effective system of monitoring through official country visits; and fail to effectively address 90 per cent of the allegations of torture and ill-treatment transmitted. 104. In order to reverse this trend, the Special Rapporteur recommends that States unequivocally acknowledge and reaffirm that: (a) Effective prevention, investigation and prosecution of and redress for torture and ill-treatment are not a matter of policy, but an absolute and non-derogable obligation binding upon all States, regardless of their treaty obligations; (b) No exceptional circumstances whatsoever can justify any practice of or complacency with torture or ill-treatment; (c) Not only active participation but also culpable acquiescence of State officials to torture may give rise to individual criminal responsibility under universal jurisdiction; (d) Without strict transparency and accountability, complacency with torture and ill-treatment will remain deeply ingrained in any society and governance system worldwide. 105. In evaluating their interaction with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, States should consider whether: (a) Requests for a country visit submitted by the Special Rapporteur have been effectively processed and answered in a prompt and favourable manner, and in full compliance with the official terms of reference of the mandate; (b) Allegations of torture or ill-treatment transmitted by the Special Rapporteur have been answered and effectively addressed through appropriate measures of prevention, investigation, prosecution and redress. Where this is not the 19