and unavailability of trained doctors to provide evidence of the torture. There exists no central agency on medico-legal examination, and most of the work is done on an ad hoc basis based on scattered laws. This affects the whole criminal justice system due to a lack of circumstantial or physical evidence, and puts an emphasis on documentary evidence, which necessarily focuses police on obtaining confessions, which is when torture takes place. Another challenge is the protection of victims and witnesses, as there exists no national law and, thus, when filing a communication, a lot of plans need to be made for the victim’s protection, including confidentiality, safe houses, evacuation, and counseling. In addition, although AF has only used individual communications since 2007, it has created reactions within the government system. In response to the challenge of inquiries of the Committees and Special Rapporteurs, the government established a Law and Human Rights Division within the Prime Minister’s Office, even though the employees think this is an unnecessary burden. arena. Another impact has been the establishment of the Law and Human Rights Divisions in the Prime Minister’s Office, which coordinates with the government agencies. As a result of the Committee Report under Article 20, a bill was introduced criminalizing torture which AF hopes will be passed with some changes to its content. A law reform process has also started on the Criminal Code, reforming the laws relating to evidence, police, medico-legal investigation, and there are discussions of reforming the law enforcement or criminal justice institutions, including the Police Act. Since the Prime Minister’s Office has to collect both information and replies from the different law enforcement agencies (police, army, and other quasi-judicial bodies), it is forced to charge or blame organizations like the AF and other human rights organizations for creating trouble, which ultimately affects our regular detention visits. Advocacy Forum regularly visits detention centers in twenty out of 75 districts. This brings a lot of sponsored public criticisms to the AF and other human rights organizations from law enforcement agencies and by those who are named in the individual communication process. Advocacy Forum has some concerns regarding the Committee and the Special Procedures. For example, the country’s postal system is very bad, and the Committee sends its communications through the postal service. Consequently, AF does not receive these communications until after the date has expired. Advocacy Forum regularly uses email to send communications, but the Committee does not prefer this means of communication. The Committee also does not provide information to the complainants, and the complainants have to wait for either the annual or other reports to find the information. The Committee should provide information to the victims or complainants as it comes into existence in the domestic legal system. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the Committee does little follow-up on its views, and therefore should do further follow-up on implementation. Lastly, perhaps the Committee should also connect its work on capacity development with the work of the UN system. Thank you very much. Conclusion The work of AF is done as a joint collaboration with international organizations such as REDRESS, AI, HRW, OMCT, ICJ and with the joint work of national organizations. Interns from different universities do a lot of work in preparing the communications and responding to the queries of the Committee and the Special Procedures. The impact of filing individual communications is noticeable. Advocacy Forum utilizes an integrated plan of action rather than filing only an individual communication. The filing of communications alone is not effective. It has to be an integrated approach, filing cases domestically and bringing some cases into the international Remarks of Juan E. Méndez* Introduction M y presentation will highlight the challenges of evidence and burdens of proof in the context of the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDT). The following remarks are also applicable to all of the United Nations Special Procedures, which presently includes about forty mechanisms, ten of which have a country specific mandate and the rest have a thematic mandate. The mandate on * Juan E. Méndez was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 6, 2010, and started his mandate on November 1, 2010. He is a Visiting Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law. 39