E/GN.4/1991/17 page 4 Special Rapporteur has been established by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and has been confirmed by the Economic and Social Council, all Member States must be deemed to have pledged themselves under Article 56 of the Charter to co-operate with him. 13. Upon the invitation from the Government of the Philippines the Special Rapporteur visited the country from 1 to 10 October 1990. The account of that visit appears in the present report in section A, Chapter III. The Special Rapporteur feels that such visits provide him with highly useful information about the human rights situation in a country in general, and the occurrence of torture in particular, thereby enabling him to make recommendations to prevent torture, while taking into account the specific legal and administrative context of that country. Although the Commission, by its resolution 1990/34, encouraged Governments to give serious consideration to inviting the Special Rapporteur to visit their country so as to enable him to fulfil his mandate even more effectively, he has so far not received any invitation for 1991. From time to time he has consultations in Geneva with permanent representatives of Member States or Observer States to indicate that he would welcome an invitation from their Government. He does so in particular when a Government upon its taking office, has strongly committed itself to improve respect for human rights and to restore the rule of law or when he receives information that the situation in a particular country with regard to torture is deteriorating. He feels that by visiting such a country he can help the Government concerned in its efforts to eradicate torture. Another reason for visiting a country may be that the Government has established new mechanisms, such as an independent human rights commission. It might be useful for the Special Rapporteur to inform himself about the way in which such a mechanism functions in order to see whether it can also be used in different contexts. In some cases such consultations have led to an invitation to visit the country, whereas in other cases the Government made clear that a visit would not be appreciated or was not deemed useful. The Special Rapporteur feels that in the latter cases the function of a visit is misunderstood. In one recent case the Special Rapporteur has opened consultations with the permanent representative of a Member State after he received information about an increase of the practice of torture in that State. The Government concerned informed him that corrective mechanisms within the country functioned well and that the courts usually rejected evidence obtained under duress and acquitted the accused. The Government therefore saw no reason to invite the Special Rapporteur. The Special Rapporteur had been well aware that the court system functioned well and had explicitly said so; the purpose of his intended visit was the prevention of practices of torture, the existence of which was implicitly admitted, and which continued in spite of the court decisions and this was obviously, and regrettably, misunderstood. 14. As the Special Rapporteur has said in previous reports, an invitation extended to him by a Government should not be seen as an admission that torture is wilfully condoned in the country concerned. Nobody knows better than the Special Rapporteur how difficult it is to eradicate torture and that, once its occurrence has decreased, it may easily re-appear under certain conditions, in particular if there is an armed insurgency or a virulent opposition. The outlawry of torture and well-functioning corrective mechanisms in such circumstances are obviously insufficient and supportive preventive measures are called for. The Special Rapporteur strongly feels that he would perform his function in a half-hearted way if he confined