Effects and Impact of Special Procedures torture, is absolutely required under international standards. Intent is not required for a finding of CIDT because cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment can also be negligently inflicted. As a result of this distinction, the mandate operates on a huge variety of cases, e.g., prison conditions that under certain circumstances can be cruel, inhumane or degrading without being able to point to any particular official having the intent to inflict that cruelty. In accordance with the international definition of torture, a state agent must be responsible for inflicting the torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In some circumstances, however, a state can be held accountable for the action of non-state agents under widely accepted rules of state responsibility, when a state knows or ought to have known that torture or CIDT is imminent or was inflicted yet the state fails to protect these individuals from ill treatment. A prevalent example of this can be found in some domestic violence cases. The Special Procedures’ communications are considered nonbinding, which limits the efficacy of the mechanism. However, the mandate applies binding norms to the facts. Regarding my mandate, the prohibition of torture and CIDT is well established under customary international law as a peremptory norm, also called jus cogens. Therefore the absolute prohibition applies to all states regardless of whether they have ratified any treaty. In addition, signatories and parties to the UN Convention against Torture are obligated by the absolute prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to refrain from any action that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.42 Moreover, not only the prohibition but all other provisions in the Convention have acquired the status of customary international law norms. These legally binding obligations are used as a basis for all my observations, but the communications themselves and my final conclusions on them are still considered non-binding. When an individual is subjected to acts of torture or CIDT, the state is legally obligated to undertake remedial measures— which should be done in close consultation with the survivor or the victim’s family—to address the harm caused. For instance, each state must offer reparations or other compensation to the victims of torture; states shall not use coerced confessions in evidence against victims; and states have an obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish acts of torture. Nonetheless, there are several benefits to utilizing the UN Special Procedures. First, Special Procedures are not treaty bodies and therefore are not bound to interact only with countries that have signed and ratified that Convention against Torture. In fact, Special Procedures have “jurisdiction” of some sort over 194 countries in the world. All member states of the United Nations are subject to the activities of UN Special Procedures. Second, Special Procedures are not bound by procedural rules such as exhaustion of domestic remedies or exclusivity rules. Therefore, if the same case is before a treaty body or a regional body, there is no obstacle to bringing it to the attention of Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts, and members of the Working Groups. In addition, the Convention recognizes that states have some affirmative obligations with respect to the prevention of torture; for instance, through training of state agents, educating the public, and adopting legislation. In the context of legislation, I occasionally get cases where the legislation itself falls short of obligations. If a country is in the process of revising or adopting relevant legislation that attempts to domesticate legal obligations of the state or contemplate torture in the criminal code as provided under the Convention, I engage in this process and provide recommendations and other support. Therefore, legislation addressing crimes of torture and CIDT must provide the same elements and descriptions as provided under international law, attach penalties that are adequate and that reflect the severity of the crime, and ensure that amnesties, pardons, and statutes of limitations are not applicable to torture under any circumstances. In addition, national legislation should contemplate the requirement to investigate, prosecute, and appropriately punish the perpetrator ex officio in every case of torture, without placing the burden on the victim to prove the allegations. Unfortunately, too often the state claims it does not know of acts of torture, stating that it does not have “official” knowledge, even though the victim made a public statement but not a formal complaint. I remind states of the obligation to act ex officio. In the case of Kurt v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights explicitly held that the prosecutor has an obligation to act ex officio if there are any traces or any reason to believe that someone has been subjected to ill treatment and the prosecutor cannot expect the victim to complain.43 Anyone can submit a communication to UN Special Procedures—individuals, victims, NGOs, or lawyers representing victims. The Rapporteurship can also receive allegations and related information from other partners, including UN officials working in the field. When submitting a communication to states, the mandate does not reveal the source and therefore a measure of protection can be ensured. However, the mandate cannot accept anonymous complaints. In order to submit a complaint, it must include key pieces of information such as name, dates, and details about the alleged violation. The mandate can also act sua sponte, learning of cases without having received any formal communication and acting on the mandate’s own initiative. Communications to governments must include several features. First, the communication provides the applicable international standards regarding the prohibition of torture and CIDT as they relate to the state and to the facts alleged and whether the international definition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are prima facie met in the particular case. Since the mandate applies international standards of torture, intent must be distinguished from purpose. Intent, from our perspective, is the intent to inflict severe pain and suffering and that, for a case of 41