A/56/156 against insults and public curiosity” and considers the violation of such obligation a serious breach to the Convention. The ICRC Commentary refers to the fact that the protection extends to moral values, such as the moral independence of the prisoners, or protection against acts of intimidation. With respect to interrogation, article 17 (Beginning of captivity) of the same Convention provides that “no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” 6. The Special Rapporteur notes that he mainly receives communications regarding acts that cause physical pain or suffering or regarding persons at risk of being subjected to those acts. He will, of course, continue to react vigorously to that kind of violation of the prohibition of torture. Nevertheless, he notes that information on threats and intimidation a person may have been subjected to, especially while in the hands of law enforcement officials, is an often crucial element in assessing whether the person is at risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. 7. After his visit to Azerbaijan, the Special Rapporteur reported that it was believed by so many detainees he had met during the mission that torture was automatic that the mere threat or hint of adverse consequences for failure to comply with investigators’ wishes (such as to sign a confession) was assumed to mean torture. For some, the mere fact of detention had the same implication. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur noted that the investigative authorities frequently did nothing to dispel this association. The Special Rapporteur pointed out that the fear of physical torture may itself constitute mental torture.2 The Special Rapporteur also referred in several of his mission reports to the fact that the absence of marks on the body that would be consistent with allegation of torture should not necessarily be treated by prosecutors and judges as proof that such allegations are false.3 In that respect, he called for the judiciary to be made more aware of other forms of torture, such as intimidation and other threats. 8. It is the Special Rapporteur’s opinion that serious and credible threats, including death threats, to the physical integrity of the victim or a third person can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 4 even to torture, especially when the victim remains in the hands of law enforcement officials. He remains alert to the problems posed in respect of securing evidence of non-physical forms of torture. B. Enforced or involuntary disappearance as a form of torture 9. The Special Rapporteur would like briefly to take stock of the situation in respect of acts of enforced disappearance, since the jurisprudence of several international human rights monitoring mechanisms has referred to the prohibition of torture while dealing with such acts. 10. As stated in article 1 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance,4 any act of enforced disappearance5 “constitutes a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing, inter alia, the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life.” Similarly, the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances acknowledged, in its third report to the Commission, that enforced disappearance itself constitutes ipso facto torture and other prohibited ill-treatment. It stated that: “the very fact of being detained as a disappeared person, isolated from one’s family for a long period is certainly a violation of the right to humane conditions of detention and has been represented to the Group as torture.”6 The issue of enforced disappearances is thus all too relevant to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, who would like to take this opportunity to remind the General Assembly of the links between these two serious human rights violations, in particular in the light of findings of other human rights mechanisms. 11. The Committee against Torture has often expressed concern over practices of enforced disappearance while reviewing periodic reports submitted in accordance with article 19 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.7 Similarly, the Human Rights Committee concluded while reviewing individual complaints, that enforced disappearances may amount to torture and other forms of ill-treatment