A/HRC/46/26 (a) Full cooperation: Full and expeditious responses that (b) supply all information requested and ensure proper follow-up to the recommendations and conclusions of the Special Rapporteur, including, as a minimum, evidence for the initiation of all measures of prevention, investigation, prosecution and redress required under applicable international law; (b) Partial cooperation: Responses that fail to meet any of the criteria described in subparagraph (a) above but that have included at least an acknowledgement of receipt or other form of dialogue between the Government and the Special Rapporteur; (c) No cooperation: Failure or refusal to respond to the official communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur. (d) Pending: The Government has either provided a timely and constructive response to the communication, which has not yet been translated and, therefore, still has not been evaluated; or has expressed genuine intent to provide the requested information or take the measures recommended and, to that end, has requested additional information or further clarification from the mandate holder. 61. While the categories of “full cooperation”, “no cooperation” and “pending” are selfexplanatory and unlikely to give rise to significant questions, controversy or other disagreements, the distinction between “full cooperation” and “partial cooperation” warrants further discussion. In particular, there seems to be a significant discrepancy between the standards set by the Human Rights Council for “full cooperation” with the mandate and the self-assessment of States, as reflected not only in their responses to the questionnaire but, more importantly, also in their responses to the official communications transmitted by the mandate holder. 3. Distinction between “full” and “partial” cooperation 62. As has been shown, the Human Rights Council has identified cumulative criteria for “full cooperation” with the mandate, namely, full and expeditious responses that supply all information requested and ensure proper follow-up to the recommendations and conclusions made by the mandate holder, including as a minimum, evidence for the initiation of all measures of prevention, investigation, prosecution and redress required under applicable international law. 63. In practice, only responses meeting the criteria for “full cooperation” can ensure that the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur are duly investigated and that all necessary and appropriate measures of prevention, prosecution and redress are taken in full compliance with the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. 64. Regretfully, more than 90 per cent of States’ responses to official communications of the Special Rapporteur fall short of this standard. While 36 per cent do not receive any response whatsoever (“no cooperation”), 54 per cent otherwise fail to adequately address the allegations transmitted (“partial cooperation”). Clearly, the failure of Governments to respond to the official communications of the Special Rapporteur always raises serious questions about the credibility of their commitment to the prohibition of torture and illtreatment. A more nuanced approach is required for responses amounting to “partial cooperation”. In this category, not all shortcomings are of equal seriousness; they may range from slight and inadvertent oversight all the way to serious and deliberate contraventions. Importantly, however, all of them are sufficiently serious to undermine both the effectiveness of the mandate and the faithful implementation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. 65. In the overview below, the Special Rapporteur aims to describe the predominant ways in which the responses of States to official communications fall short of the standard of “full cooperation”, starting from the most serious shortcomings: (a) Aggressive rejection 66. Most alarmingly, some official statements or communications transmitted or attached by the Special Rapporteur have received aggressive responses. The States concerned not only rejected the allegations of human rights violations, but also accused the relevant mandate holders of “bias”, “inflammatory remarks”, “political motivation”, “violations of the Charter 12