E/CN.A/1990/17 page 2 II. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK 6. The Special Rapporteur received a great number of communications with information on alleged cases of torture or severe maltreatment. Whenever the information contained in these allegations is sufficiently detailed and is not patently fabricated the Special Rapporteur feels that it is his duty to bring these allegations to the attention of the Government concerned and to ask for its comment. The fact that the number of allegations transmitted to Governments is still increasing does not mean by itself that the occurrence of torture in the world is also increasing. It may be explained by the fact that the Special Rapporteur's mandate is becoming more widely known and that an ever-increasing number of non-governmental organizations have become familiar with it. Another factor of importance is that allegations tend to become more detailed and therefore lend themselves more easily to submission to Governments. In previous years no action could be taken on a considerable number of allegations as they did not contain sufficient information about the identity of the victim, the date on which the victim was arrested or tortured, the place where he was allegedly subjected to torture or the type of torture which was inflicted. The Special Rapporteur has learnt that steps were being taken by Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems, International (HURIDOCS) to bring into use a standardized format for allegations submitted by non-governmental organizations. The Special Rapporteur welcomes this development since it can contribute to a greater effectiveness of his and other mandates. 7. The Special Rapporteur wishes to point out that the number of allegations submitted to certain Governments may not be taken as an indication of the extent of the practice of torture in those particular countries. First of all, previous statements of the Special Rapporteur have to be reiterated, to the effect that in submitting allegations to Governments he does not take a position on the merits thereof, since he is not in a position to do so. The number of allegations received with regard to a particular country, however, is determined not only by the human rights situation in that country, but also by other factors. Some societies have a more open character than others so that it is easier to collect information about the internal situation. The degree of public awareness in a country and the presence there of human rights monitoring organizations are relevant factors, as is also the role played by opposition political groups or religious communities. 8. Neither does the fact that no allegations have been submitted to a particular Government necessarily mean that no torture is practised in that country. Because of the closed character of a society or the prevalent political climate the sparse information received can be so incomplete that it is impossible to transmit it to the Government concerned. 9. When allegations received contain a combination of human rights violations which are covered by a special mandate, the dominant element determines under which mandate action will be taken. The most common of such combinations of serious violations is the allegation that a corpse has been found with gunshot or stab wounds and with marks of torture. Since here the killing is the dominant element the allegation is transmitted by the Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitary executions. If, however, it is alleged that a person had died as a result of torture, torture is the dominant element and the allegation is transmitted by the Special Rapporteur on torture.