A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 27. Usually, the inter-active dialogue with Governments, NGOs and other stakeholders is interesting and sometimes leads to highly controversial discussions. I was particularly challenged in relation to my reports concerning corporal and capital punishment. Although my mandate explicitly covers other forms of “cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment”, I was told by a considerable number of States that I had exceeded my mandate since the administration of justice was a matter exclusive to domestic jurisdiction not subject to international human rights law. I simply do not understand these arguments. Are the provisions of international human rights law relating to detention, access to justice and a fair trial, such as articles 9, 10, 11, 14 an 15 ICCPR, not at the centre of the administration of justice by providing specific limits to domestic law and practice? If corporal and capital punishment are considered outside my mandate, which types of punishment are covered by the absolute prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment in accordance with article 7 ICCPR and article 16 CAT? I fully respect that Governments disagree with some of my interpretations of international human rights law or with the case law of the relevant UN treaty monitoring bodies which I cite in my reports. In respect of capital punishment, I did not even arrive at definite conclusions but simply argued for the need for a fresh look. But why is it necessary to immediately accuse me of having exceeded my mandate and violated the Code of Conduct? Other controversial discussions were stimulated by reports on torture-related issues in the context of the fight against terrorism, such as the use of secret places of detention and “extraordinary renditions”, diplomatic assurances to circumvent the principle of non-refoulement or the use of evidence extracted by torture. 28. In the resolutions on the issue of torture and CIDT, some of my recommendations have been included or confirmed. However, country-specific conclusions and recommendations have never led to any specific resolutions or recommendations by the Human Rights Council or the General Assembly. Nevertheless, some of these recommendations have been taken up again in the context of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Still, I cannot avoid the impression that better use could be made of the extensive research and investigation by me, my teams and my distinguished predecessors for the ultimate goal of eradicating torture and ill-treatment, of improving conditions of detention and of ensuring the rights to human dignity and personal integrity of detainees and other vulnerable groups. The purpose of this global study is also to highlight once again, on the basis of my specific experiences during all my fact-finding missions, the measures that Governments need to take to achieve this noble aim. 29. My country missions, visits to various detention facilities, access to relevant documents and interviews with Government officials, representatives of civil society, victims and witnesses provided me with sufficient information to assess the legal and factual situation in the countries concerned. Although the total number of countries visited is less than 10% of all UN Member States, many problems found in different regions are similar and follow a pattern which allows me to draw general conclusions. In the following pages, I wish to draw a distinction between the phenomenon of torture in the narrow sense, as defined in article 1 CAT, conditions of detention, other forms of ill-treatment by State actors outside detention, as well as torture and ill-treatment by certain non-State actors. II. Torture A. What is torture? 1. Legal definition 30. The UN Convention against Torture defines in article 1 (1) torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a 12