E/CN.A/1992/17 page 3 that torture may occur and does occur in the country concerned. The sustained campaign of the internationcal community against torture makes it necessary for all Governments to take allegations about torture practices seriously and to look into each and every case which is brought to their attention. 11. As he has said in previous reports, the Special Rapporteur is well aware that allegations of torture may be brought forward with the intention of tainting a Government's image. Since torture is generally practised by government—employed persons in conditions where impartial witnesses are absent, allegations of torture easily lend themselves to such purposes. If a Government, however, feels that it has become the victim of such a smear campaign, the most logical solution is to invite the Special Rapporteur to visit the country and carry out an investigation himself. On several occasions the Special Rapporteur has suggested to Governments whose representatives told him that the allegations had been made merely for political motives that they extend to him such an invitation for an investigative visit. As a formula for such investigative visits, he has proposed that the Government and the Special Rapporteur both choose an equal number of cases from the list of allegations transmitted. The Special Rapporteur would then hold discussions with the alleged victims, their lawyers, the medical officers who examined them, the officials who conducted the interrogations, the officials in charge of the places of detention where they were held, etc. So far, however, no Government has reacted positively to such suggestions. 12. As regards the more general aspects of the performance of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur strongly feels that such performance would gain in effectiveness if he were authorized, from time to time, to carry out on-the-spot investigations. The Commission's thematic mandates are often called monitoring mechanisms, and since fact-finding forms part of monitoring, fact-finding visits would considerably enhance the effectiveness of the functioning of such mechanisms. The Special Rapporteur feels that the apparent hesitation on the part of Governments to invite him to conduct such a fact-finding visit may stem from the fear that his findings would be considered to be a quasi-judicial verdict. He wishes to stress that his report on such a visit could only reveal the facts and the various contentions as submitted to him during the visit. 13. In this context, the Special Rapporteur notes with appreciation that the Minister of Justice of Djibouti, in a letter dated 10 June 1991, invited him to visit that country to carry out an objective and independent inquiry into a number of alleged cases of torture which he had brought to the attention of the Government of Djibouti by letter dated 17 April 1991, and on which the Government, in the same letter dated 10 June 1991, had provided detailed information (see paras. 62-64 below). Owing to a regrettable delay in communications, this visit, which had originally been scheduled to take place during the first half of October 1991, had to be postponed until a later date. The Special Rapporteur welcomes this invitation and wishes to commend the Government of Djibouti for its cooperative attitude. He feels that the Government of Djibouti, by setting this example, has contributed to a more effective functioning of the Commission's mandate on torture.