PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture Committee’s 2002 Annual Report: These Rapporteurs would seek information as to a State party’s implementation of and compliance with the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations upon the former’s initial, periodic or other reports and/or would urge the State party to take appropriate measures to that end. The Rapporteurs would report to the Committee on the activities they have undertaken pursuant to this mandate.524 In general, the follow-up process under CAT is very similar to that under the ICCPR. The Committee has sought to tackle the problems of implementing its recommendations through the follow-up procedure, by including follow-up in the list of issues prior to reporting, and taking a more pro-active approach in sending formal reminders to States who fail to reply to follow-up procedures, and scheduling meetings with their permanent representatives in Geneva to discuss the issue. Experts have also suggested formalizing the follow-up into a three-step procedure, including a second letter, a meeting with the State and a country visit in the event of non-compliance or a failure to reply.525 This may go some way to improving implementation of the Committee’s recommendations in States which do not consider compliance to be a binding obligation. b) Follow-up of Individual Communications Submitted under Article 22 of CAT Under Article 114 of its Rules of Procedure, the CAT Committee may appoint one or more Rapporteurs to follow-up on the actions of a State in response to a finding of a violation under Article 22 of CAT. The Rapporteurs have a broad mandate, as outlined in Rule 114(2): The Rapporteur(s) may make such contacts and take such action as appropriate for the due performance of the follow-up mandate and report accordingly to the Committee. The specific types of action which may be undertaken by the Rapporteur were outlined in the CAT Committee’s Annual Report in 2004.526 They include: – Requesting information from the State parties regarding action taken in response to the findings of the Committee. – Advising the Committee on possible courses of action where States have failed to respond to inquiries from the Rapporteur or the Rapporteur receives information that indicates the State has not upheld the Committee’s recommendations. 524 Report of the Committee Against Torture, (2002) UN Doc. A/57/44, Annex X (Amended Rule of Procedure 68, para. 15). 525 See Press Release “Committee against Torture discusses follow-up to concluding observations and individual communications”, 17 May 2013, para. 9, news and media, available at: www.unog.ch. 526 Report of the Committee Against Torture, (2004) UN Doc. A/59/44, para. 264. 157