261. Access to international bodies and the right to communicate with them represents an entitlement that is embedded in the foundations of all international institutions, including the human rights mechanisms under the auspices of the UN, the OAS, the EU, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Furthermore, these international human rights mechanisms depend on the information submitted by individuals and groups in order to support the implementation of international human rights standards by states.394 Therefore, any form of reprisal against human rights defenders for providing information to international bodies, or otherwise obstructing their interaction with these bodies, is both a human rights violation and, at the same time, undermines the functioning of mechanisms with which states have committed to co-operate in good faith. The UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council have both urged states to refrain from and ensure protection from any such intimidation or reprisals against human rights defenders as well as their family members and associates.395 262. International treaties, including the CAT and the OPCAT, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW and the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, contain specific provisions obliging states to protect individuals against ill-treatment or intimidation motivated by a complaint or other form of communication.396 In this regard, the Committee against Torture has designated rapporteurs to follow-up on any allegations of reprisals under the relevant provision of the CAT, which requires States to ensure that complainants and witnesses are protected against ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of their complaint or any evidence given. Other UN Treaty Bodies also devote special attention to the issue of their communication with human rights defenders and human rights NGOs. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee has underlined the importance of communication and co-operation with NGOs working on human rights,397 and has stressed that any reprisals against those who communicate with the Committee are unacceptable.398 The Committee on Enforced Disappearances, for example, has also included in its rules of procedure specific provisions about reprisals and how to react to them.399 394  UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, “Commentary to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, July 2011, p. 51. 395  See UNGA Resolution A/RES/68/181, para. 17, and Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/22/6, para. 14. 396  “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, Article 13; “Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture”, Article 15; “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”, Article 11; “Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Article 13. 397  UN Human Rights Committee, “The Relationship of the Human Rights Committee with Non-governmental Organizations”, CCPR/C/104/3, 4 June 2012. 398  In its General Comment No. 33, “The Obligations of States Parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, the Human Rights Committee noted that “States parties are obliged not to hinder access to the Committee and to prevent any retaliatory measures against any person who has addressed a communication to the Committee” (UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/33, 25 June 2009, para. 4). 399  See “Rules of Procedure of the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances”, UN Doc. CED/C/1, 22 June 2012, Rules 63(2), 95(4) and 99. Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 121