A/HRC/46/26
3.
Statistical and substantive evaluation
88.
A historical analysis of cooperation by States with mandate holders confirms a longstanding hesitancy or reluctance to invite or allow official visits by the Special Rapporteur.
Previous mandate holders regularly reported on pending requests for a country visit they had
submitted to States without obtaining any response, or voiced concern about the failure of
States to agree to the terms of reference of the mandate for official country visits, which
resulted in the cancellation or indefinite postponement of the envisaged visits.26 By the end
of the tenure of the previous mandate holder, 31 requests for a country visit were pending.27
89.
During the first four years of his tenure, the Special Rapporteur has transmitted
requests for country visits to 58 Governments, of which 32 have issued a standing invitation.28
During the same period, the mandate has been proactively invited (i.e., without a request by
the mandate holder) by only one State (Burkina Faso).
(a)
No cooperation
90.
Of the 58 Governments that received requests for a country visit, 33 (57 per cent)
never provided any response whatsoever (not even acknowledgement of receipt), including
15 States that had issued a standing invitation to the special procedures(Burundi, Ecuador,
Honduras, India, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Romania, Rwanda, South Africa and Turkmenistan ). One or several follow-up letters were
sent to 26 of the said States (seven of which had issued standing invitations: Guatemala,
India, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, South Africa and Thailand), but failed to elicit any reaction
from the Government concerned.
(b)
Partial cooperation
91.
Of the 58 Governments that received visit requests, 13 (23 per cent) showed “partial
cooperation” with the mandate holder, including five States that had issued a standing
invitation to the special procedures (Guatemala, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lebanon,
Malaysia and Thailand). In other words, the Government responded to a request for a visit
transmitted by the mandate holder but, for reasons beyond the control of the Special
Rapporteur, did not issue a firm invitation to conduct an official visit, owing to scheduling
difficulties for the Government or the Government’s disagreement with the official terms of
reference for country visits. Some Governments proactively maintain a dialogue with the
Special Rapporteur, particularly through yearly meetings on the margins of Human Rights
Council sessions; despite repeated requests for a country visit and numerous allegations of
torture and ill-treatment, however, they consistently fail to allow the Special Rapporteur to
conduct an official visit to their country.
(c)
Full cooperation
92.
Of the 58 Governments that received a request for a country visit during the period
under review, only 12 (20 per cent), including 11 that had issued a standing invitation,
showed “full cooperation” with the mandate holder in that they hosted an official country
visit (Argentina, Maldives, Serbia and Kosovo,29 Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) or extended a firm invitation (Libya, Mongolia,
Paraguay and Spain)to the Special Rapporteur, which but the Special Rapporteur declined or
postponed the envisaged country visit for reasons relating to regional distribution or
26
See for example A/HRC/13/39, para. 6 and A/HRC/19/61, para. 6.
See http://antitorture.org/recent-country-visits/.
28 Standing invitations have been extended by Argentina, Burundi, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Kenya, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Mozambique,
Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Romania, Rwanda, Serbia / Kosovo, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uzbekistan. Other: Angola, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican
Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Israel, Mali, Namibia, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
29 Reference to Kosovo should be understood in full compliance with Security Council resolution 1244
(1999) and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
27
17
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents