the Convention, no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture. 212. The Government of Egypt, which has undertaken to respect all the provisions of the Convention, including those of article 2, paragraph 2, should take measures to ensure that those provisions are implemented strictly by all State authorities. In this connection, the Government should make particular efforts to prevent its security forces from acting as a State within a State, for they seem to escape control by superior authorities. 213. In its observations, the Government, while affirming its commitment to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, totally rejects the use by the Committee of individual allegations, the credibility of which has not been established, to accuse a State party rashly of systematic practice of torture in its territory, particularly in the absence of an objective interpretation of that concept. 214. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall its views, expressed in November 1993, on what the main factors are that indicate that torture is systematically practised in a State party. Those views are the following: "The Committee considers that torture is practised systematically when it is apparent that the torture cases reported have not occurred fortuitously in a particular place or at a particular time, but are seen to be habitual, widespread and deliberate in at least a considerable part of the territory of the country in question. Torture may in fact be of a systematic character without resulting from the direct intention of a Government. It may be the consequence of factors which the Government has difficulty in controlling, and its existence may indicate a discrepancy between policy as determined by the central Government and its implementation by the local administration. Inadequate legislation which in practice allows room for the use of torture may also add to the systematic nature of this practice." 6/ 215. In the case of Egypt, the Committee finds that there is a clear contradiction between the allegations made by non-governmental sources and the information provided by the Government with regard to the role of the Egyptian security forces and the methods they use. This contradiction confirms the Committee’s conviction that a visiting mission to Egypt would have been extremely useful to complete the inquiry. Unfortunately, the Government of Egypt did not avail itself of the opportunity it had been offered to clarify the situation by accepting the visit. 216. The Government of Egypt states that at no stage of its dialogue with the Committee did it protest against the request for a visiting mission to Egypt. However, it continuously affirmed the need to discuss the framework through which the visit could take place, in the light of a clear understanding of the articles of the Convention, as one of the important factors in its decisionmaking on the subject. 217. The Committee wishes to recall, in this connection, that proposals concerning the visit to Egypt, as referred to in paragraphs 185 and 186 above, were transmitted to the Government of Egypt on 28 January 1994 and brought to the attention of its accredited representative on 28 April 1994. No replies to those proposals were received. -35-