torture is one of the oldest Special Procedures to date—created in 1985—and as a result of its long-standing history and ever expanding visibility, the mandate is frequently used by NGOs, victims, and other interested parties around the world. if verified, whether it gives rise to an unfulfilled obligation or violation on the part of the state. As the Special Rapporteur on torture, I do so by publishing my final views on communications sent and replies received in my annual “observations report” to the UN Human Rights Council.41 All Special Procedures apply three basic methodologies. The first pillar of the work of Special Procedures includes issuing communications to governments on specific cases involving human rights violations—whether violations are based on allegations in practice or on legislative shortfalls. After I receive communications from the public, the mandate acts on them by trying to establish the veracity of the complaint and assess state responsibility for the alleged acts. This procedure embodies a case complaint mechanism accessible to the public at large. The second pillar of the mandate’s work involves carrying out country visits at the invitation of governments. As the Special Rapporteur on torture, once I receive an invitation, I conduct an independent assessment of the situation of torture and CIDT in situ, which is followed by a report with my conclusions and recommendations. In these country reports, I recommend various actions and measures that the government must undertake in order to comply with its obligations under the Convention against Torture and other relevant provisions of international law relating to the implementation of the prohibition of torture and CIDT. The third pillar of the mandate’s work is the thematic reports. As the Special Rapporteur on torture, I have an opportunity twice a year to expand upon a topic within our mandate that warrants additional attention of the international community in order to generate a discussion, mostly about areas of the mandate that are not sufficiently understood, and to initiate a conversation about standards. However, Special Procedures do not have the capacity to engage in in-depth fact-finding or elaboration of the evidence. We do not hold hearings nor do we require documentary evidence. We are limited to the information provided and the response of the government, if any. The process involves an exchange of notes between the Special Rapporteur and the state and on the basis of these exchanges we determine whether a violation of the prohibition of torture has occurred or not. During the initial stages of this process, all communications are confidential, meaning that when we write to the state we cannot share this content with the applicant or anyone else. In my case at least I make some allowance if someone calls me to ask if I am working on a certain case, I feel free to say “yes, I am” and to give some general reasons as to why I am interested, although without yet expressing any conclusions on the merits of the case. But at least I think it is important to let the public know we are actually working on a case if the public is interested. We do not, however, reach out to the press ourselves to say we are working on a case. There is, however, an exception when there are significant patterns of cases that urgently require our attention. For example, during the Arab Spring, several of the UN Special Rapporteurs issued joint press releases to reflect the urgency of the situation. In addition, we previously have issued joint press releases on death penalty cases as a strategy to urge the government to comply with its international legal obligations and prevent the execution, even before the case is completed. However, for the most part, Special Procedures are subject to the rule of confidentiality. When we do receive a response from the state, we have to analyze whether the response is persuasive. In some instances, states respond but do not specifically address the content and questions of the submitted communication or only partially do so. In other instances, states fail to respond at all. In fact, approximately fifty percent of all communications do not yield government responses. Interacting with States For the purposes of today’s discussion regarding evidence and burdens of proof, the communications with governments are of the utmost importance because it is through these communications that I determine whether allegations have been proven. Considerations about evidence also apply to country visits and reports to a certain extent, because in these I use cases to illustrate identifiable trends in order to distinguish between isolated cases and those cases that represent a pattern or even a systematic practice. Focusing on the communications procedure, however, I am of the belief that it is a case complaint mechanism and should therefore be conducted under rules applicable to such processes. Each Special Procedure has a governing UN Human Rights Council resolution that provides for such a case complaint mechanism.40 Thus, Special Procedures are allowed to receive communications from the public and act on them in accordance with the corresponding resolution. These mechanisms in practice are, however, more or less defined as an exercise in engaging the government in a conversation about allegations raised. Nevertheless, I believe very strongly that if the mandate represents to the public that communications will be entertained, the Special Rapporteur owes it to the petitioners to come to some kind of conclusion about whether the allegation is verified or not and, These cases are subsequently compiled into an annual observations report that is submitted to the UN Human Rights Council. The report includes short descriptions of the cases, my conclusions as to whether there was a violation, and recommendations. I often conclude that there has been a violation because most cases at this stage are based on highly credible facts. Thus, it is no surprise that most of my observations—or final views—are condemnatory. On occasion, however, I find that the information provided by a government aligns with its obligations under international law relating to the prohibition of torture and CIDT. In these cases, I do not acquit the state. Instead, I request further information regarding the state’s actions to ensure that these actions match rhetoric as well as updates as the case ripens domestically. 40