The burden of proof required under international law standards for state responsibility is close to a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, the standard of proof is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which would be appropriate for a criminal case. Rather, a preponderance of the evidence on the record must lead me to believe that the state has not lived up to its responsibilities under existing rules and, in general, under international human rights law. A prima facie case can be fulfilled based on accounts by witnesses of the person’s physical condition; medical reports of the physical or mental injuries suffered or the lack of those reports; whether the state had the opportunity to establish them and did not subject the person to a medical examination; and whether the medical examination—if it took place—complied with guarantees of independence and impartiality. I demand that the state provide full information on all those aspects, not just whether an examination has happened or not. I also take into consideration whether a person has been kept in incommunicado detention, in solitary confinement, in prolonged death row incarceration, subjected to disappearance, subjected to any restraint contrary to international standards, and whether the detention conditions amount to CIDT. Processes of the Special Rapporteur In order to provide you all with information regarding the case complaint mechanism, I will describe the process, the difference between urgent appeals and allegation letters, and the requisite evidence to prove the alleged acts. Initially, I start by first examining all complaints and establishing the reliability of the source. I receive a lot of complaints from people who have not previously engaged with the mandate as well as from wellknown sources. Thus, I do not consider only complaints submitted by widely known organizations like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, although well-known sources do add an important element of reliability. In addition, source reliability is also attributed to national organizations that are working effectively on a local level. International visibility is not the determinant factor; rather it is the quality of work done in countries. As guiding factors, I look at the internal consistency of the information as well as its consistency with other information from the country in question; corroboration, if necessary or possible, of the information; the existence of reports on torture or other ill-treatment practices from international and national sources, such as official commissions of inquiry or national commissions of human rights; findings of other international bodies; and the existence of national legislation that may permit for instance incommunicado detention, extradition, or deportation or facilitate torture or other ill treatment. Application to Human Rights Violations To illustrate the case complaint mechanism and required burdens of proof, I would like to discuss an example pertaining to allegations of excessive use of force. In street demonstrations, for example, if there has been excessive use of force and the result is that some injuries by themselves convey the sense of CIDT, the fact that the person has never been in custody is no obstacle for us engaging in the particular case. However, the use of force has to be excessive under the circumstances, and the result must be serious injury of a physical or mental nature. For example, I look at whether the individual was actually taken to a hospital because of the seriousness of the injuries. Communications are classified either as urgent appeals or as allegation letters. Urgent appeals are reserved for cases in which torture appears to be imminent or is happening as we speak. For instance, if someone has just been arrested and is being held incommunicado in a country with a pattern of incommunicado detention, or if someone is about to be deported to a place where he or she is at risk of being tortured, such a person would be the subject of an urgent appeal. In cases of urgent appeals, I ask the government to respond immediately and if I do not receive a response within one to two weeks, I am free to issue final views on the matter. Another example of the case communications mechanism refers to allegations of torture of a complainant in prison. In such circumstances, I examine whether the state has given any substantive explanation as to how the injury was sustained, and the kind of treatment the person has received in custody. I remind the states that under the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, they are obligated to provide medical attention under all circumstances. While providing medical attention, if they fail to establish the origin of the wounds, then they are also failing in their obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish. I have also dealt with cases of female genital mutilation, although those largely are cases involving non-state actors. In this context, however, if I know the state is aware of the practice and is not doing enough to counter it, I conclude that a violation has taken place. The attempt to make female genital mutilation safe by requiring the intervention of hospitals and medical personnel is, I believe, wrongheaded. Even with the best intention, it can be a way to sanitize through legislation a practice that should be prohibited under all circumstances. Alternatively, allegation letters are reserved for cases in which the torture has already occurred or for any requests to clarify allegations or to forward information on pending investigations. For allegation letters, I ask the government to respond within sixty days. Many states, however, answer after the sixty days. Since I do not immediately publish my views, I do consider late responses if they arrive before I write my conclusions. Communications are submitted only to governments. I cannot entertain complaints against non-state actors except under limited circumstances. Although the mandate is asked to comment on practices of professional organizations, I must refuse to participate in that kind of debate since it is outside our mandate. As the UN Special Rapporteur I can offer views as to what the ethics of the profession should require of medical doctors, but cannot entertain cases against professional organizations. 42