E/CN.4/1993/26 page 8 is true, the perpetrators will be punished and the victims will be compensated. The information received, together with the replies by Governments, enable the Special Rapporteur to draw for the Commission a picture of the occurrence and the extent of the practice of torture and to submit to the Commission his conclusions and recommendations. For that reason it is regrettable that only a minority of the Governments whose comments are solicited provide the Special Rapporteur with a reply, in spite of the fact that the Commission has urged Governments which have not yet responded to communications transmitted to them by the Special Rapporteurs to answer expeditiously (resolution E/CN.4/1992/32, para. 18). 15. The Special Rapporteur is also invited "to bear in mind the need to be able to respond effectively to credible and reliable information that comes before him." This provision, which is also contained in other thematic mandates established by the Commission, has led to the so-called urgent appeal procedure. If anything, this urgent appeal procedure illustrates the essentially different character of the mandates of the treaty-based bodies and that of the Special Rapporteur. The latter's function is basically humanitarian and destined, through the urgent appeals procedure, to avert potential or ongoing violations of the prohibition of torture and through the transmittal of alleged violations to enable Governments to expedite the suppression of torture and the compensation of victims. The instruments of thematic procedures has been developed by the Commission as a tool in the struggle against practices which have been outlawed by the international community and as a means to come to the rescue of potential or real victims of such outlawed practices. Hence, the emphasis is laid on the element of "effectiveness" and on the adoption of preventive measures. 16. The difference in character of the various mandates is also highlighted if we compare the competence of the Committee against Torture to carry out an independent inquiry in cases where it has received information about a systematic practice of torture and to visit the country concerned with the consent of the Government, with the country visits paid by the Special Rapporteur. An inquiry by the Committee is an ultimum remedium which will only be applied when there is overwhelming evidence of torture on a massive scale and will finally lead to a determination on state responsibility. A visit by the Special Rapporteur is commendable in all those cases where, on the basis of the information received, the situation in a country seems to be problematical and where consultations with the authorities and with non-governmental groups might lead to a clearer picture and to improvements by the taking of certain measures. Such a visit for consultative purposes should be seen much more as falling in the category of advisory services than an investigative mission provided for in the Convention against Torture. This seems also to be the opinion of the Commission when it encouraged Governments to give serious consideration to inviting the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries so as to enable him to fulfil his mandate more effectively. The difference in character is also borne out by the fact that the Committee will carry out its inquiry in confidence, although a summary account of the proceedings may be included in the Committee's annual report, whereas the Special Rapporteur immediately submits a report on a country visit to the Commission.