E/CN.4/2006/6 page 11 (c) It is often the case that the requesting and the requested States are parties to CAT, ICCPR and other treaties absolutely prohibiting torture. Rather than using all their diplomatic and legal powers as States parties to hold other States parties accountable for their violations, requesting States, by means of diplomatic assurances, seek only an exception from the practice of torture for a few individuals, which leads to double standards vis-à-vis other detainees in those countries; (d) Diplomatic assurances are not legally binding. It is therefore unclear why States that violate binding obligations under treaty and customary international law should comply with non-binding assurances. Another important question in this regard is whether the authority providing such diplomatic assurances has the power to enforce them vis-à-vis its own security forces; (e) Post-return monitoring mechanisms are no guarantee against torture - even the best monitoring mechanisms (e.g. ICRC and CPT) are not “watertight” safeguards against torture; (f) The individual concerned has no recourse if assurances are violated; (g) In most cases, diplomatic assurances do not contain any sanctions in case they are violated, i.e. there is no accountability of the requested or requesting State, and therefore the perpetrators of torture are not brought to justice; (h) Both States have a common interest in denying that returned persons were subjected to torture. Therefore, where States have identified independent organizations to undertake monitoring functions under the agreement, these interests may translate into undue political pressure upon these monitoring bodies, particularly where one is funded by the sending and/or receiving State. 32. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur stated that diplomatic assurances with regard to torture are nothing but attempts to circumvent the absolute prohibition of torture and refoulement, and that rather than elaborating a legal instrument on minimum standards for the use of diplomatic assurances, the Council of Europe should call on its member States to refrain from seeking and adopting such assurances with States with a proven record of torture. 33. On the occasion of Human Rights Day, 10 December 2005, the Special Rapporteur expressed his appreciation to the High Commissioner for Human Rights for designating as this year’s theme “On terrorists and torturers”, and for her efforts on drawing international attention to the absolute prohibition of torture. He fully supports the statement of the High Commissioner, in which she expressed her concerns about the erosion of the prohibition of torture in the context of counter-terrorism, particularly the trend of seeking diplomatic assurances and the use of secret places of detention. The Special Rapporteur also expresses his appreciation for the statement of the Secretary-General on the occasion of Human Rights Day, in which he called upon the international community to speak out forcefully against torture in all its forms and stated, “torture can never be an instrument to fight terror, for torture is an instrument of terror”.