E/CN.4/1994/31 page 5 (d) Exploring the possibility of visits to States with a view to gaining more direct knowledge of cases and situations falling within his mandate and identifying measures to prevent the recurrence of such cases and to improve the situations. 6. As far as urgent appeals are concerned, the Special Rapporteur has been formally requested by one Government (Turkey, letter of 10 September 1993) and informally requested by another to clarify the criteria he uses in deciding to make an urgent appeal. In both cases he indicated to the respective Governments that, since they were raising an issue of general concern he would address the matter in the present report. This would allow the Commission on Human Rights to take cognizance of the issue and offer any guidance it might deem appropriate. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur draws the attention of the Commission to the relevant passage in the report of his predecessor to the Commission at its forty-eighth session (E/CN.4/1992/17). In paragraph 14, he stated: "The urgent appeal procedure is basically different from the transmittal of communications about alleged cases of torture. An urgent appeal is made whenever the Special Rapporteur receives information that a person has been arrested and fear is expressed that that person may be subjected to torture. Such fear may be based inter alia on accounts by relatives or other visitors of the detainee’s physical condition or on the fact that the detainee is kept incommunicado, a situation which is conducive to torture. An urgent appeal by the Special Rapporteur is of a purely humanitarian nature. The Government concerned is merely requested to assure the Special Rapporteur that the detained person’s physical and mental integrity will be guaranteed. Such an appeal, moreover, provides the Government concerned with the opportunity to look into the matter and to uphold its obligations under international law by instructing the detaining authorities to respect the individual’s right to physical and mental integrity." 7. It is clear from this explanation that the essence of the procedure is not per se accusatory. It is essentially preventive in nature and purpose. The most satisfactory answer the Special Rapporteur can receive from the Government in question is one containing evidence that the fear expressed has not materialized. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur does not, indeed must not, wait until he has received evidence that torture has taken or is taking place before making an urgent appeal. That would undermine the effectiveness of this preventive technique. The question can only be whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is held under circumstances indicating that there is an identifiable risk of torture. That assessment has to be made rapidly by the Special Rapporteur and in making it he takes into account a number of factors, any one of which may be sufficient, though generally more than one will be present. These factors include: (a) The previous reliability of the source of the information; (b) The internal consistency of the information;