A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 up mission have not been accepted so far. The only country where I was invited shortly after my mission to conduct a training workshop for members of the National Preventive Mechanism established in accordance with OPCAT is Moldova. Sri Lanka invited me for a similar purpose but later withdrew this invitation. 21. I fully recognize that the follow-up to my country missions is one of the weak points in carrying out my mandate. Although keenly interested in recent developments in all countries visited my predecessors and by me, my teams in Geneva and Vienna and I simply do not have the capacity to independently assess the extent to which our missions were successful, in the sense that the real situation of torture and ill-treatment, including conditions of detention improved. One should, however, take into account that the followup to my country missions is not primarily my task but that of my parent bodies to which I report, i.e. the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. Special procedures are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council with a mandate to objectively investigate the legal and factual situation of a particular human right or a related problem on a global level, and to report to the Council and the Assembly on their findings, including their assessment of the situation in a particular country as a result of a country mission and their recommendations. Strictly speaking, our task is fulfilled when we deliver our reports and present them during the inter-active dialogue in the respective political decision making bodies of the United Nations. These bodies have the mandate to urge the respective Governments to implement our recommendations and the political power for an effective follow-up. Unfortunately, apart from discussing our reports during the inter-active dialogue and using some of our recommendations in the universal periodic review (UPR), not much attention is paid by the political bodies of the United Nations to our mission reports, conclusions and recommendations. On the contrary, Governments often seem to be more interested in criticizing our fact-finding and insisting on our responsibilities as laid down in the Code of Conduct, than in a proper follow-up to our recommendations. D. Individual communications 22. I send communications concerning individual allegations of torture and ill-treatment in relation to a considerable number of countries almost on a daily basis. These communications are sent by the alleged victims and their families or via domestic and international NGOs and other channels. We carefully check the reliability of the sources and the consistency of the information provided. If the allegations are credible and relate to past practices, I send an “allegation letter” to the respective Government. If the persons concerned might still be under a risk of torture or ill-treatment, I send an “urgent appeal” which until recently was transmitted directly to the respective Minister for Foreign Affairs. After the Code of Conduct for Special procedures was adopted by the Human Rights Council in 2007, even “urgent appeals” need to be communicated via the diplomatic Missions in Geneva or New York which, of course, delays this urgent procedure. 23. In these communications, I emphasize to Governments my inability to assess the accuracy of the allegations contained therein. Consequently, communications forwarded to any Government shall not be interpreted as an accusation from my side. But since I only forward allegations or risks of torture and ill-treatment which at first sight seem credible to me, I also stress the obligations of the respective Governments in accordance with article 13 CAT and article 7 ICCPR to independently carry out investigations, to immediately stop any practices of torture and ill-treatment, to provide victims with reparation and, should a case of torture be found, to bring the perpetrators to justice. In any case, I ask the Governments concerned to inform me of the type of investigations conducted and of their results. 10