E/CN.4/1994/31 page 7 Special Rapporteur to warrant elucidation, he is only in a position to seek that elucidation within the context of the next letter of transmittal of information. 10. This rigidity flows from the limited resources the Centre is in a position to make available to service the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. Despite these difficulties, the Special Rapporteur has been able to initiate the practice of consulting sources of original allegations in respect of official responses to the allegations, especially in cases where the facts appear to be contradicted. 11. The Special Rapporteur believes that it is in the interest of both victims and Governments that he be in a position (a) to transmit to Governments summaries of all credible and reliable information addressed to him alleging cases and practices of torture; (b) to analyse responses from Governments; (c) to consult sources of allegations on such responses, as appropriate; (d) to pursue the dialogue with Governments when warranted; and (e) to draw any conclusions and make any recommendations to Governments that such a systematic exchange would indicate. To the extent that the present report fails to reflect this ambition, it is, as indicated, the result of limited resources. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur believes that, unless the Commission on Human Rights expresses a different view, he should seek as far as possible to work in a manner consistent with the above approach. 12. Finally, in respect of this aspect of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur wishes to draw the Commission’s attention to an issue raised by one Government (India, letter dated 9 December 1993) which stated that "the mandate of the Special Rapporteur should also take into account human rights violations perpetrated by terrorism". The Special Rapporteur considers that the problem of terrorism is covered by Commission resolution 1993/48 (see Introduction, para. 4 (e)), which speaks of the "adverse effect on the enjoyment of human rights of persistent acts of violence committed in many countries by armed groups ... that spread terror among the population". 13. The Special Rapporteur notes that resolution 1993/48, like its predecessor resolutions, does not refer to such acts of violence as constituting human rights violations. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, this omission is intentional. He believes that the Commission would not wish to dignify the perpetrators of criminal violence by describing them as human rights violators or, even less, addressing them as though they had the sort of authority that falls within the regime of the international legal protection of human rights. Of course, the Special Rapporteur is conscious of the fact that international law applicable in armed conflict, whether the conflict be of an international or non-international character, prohibits torture by any party to the conflict at any time and in any place whatsoever. The Special Rapporteur could envisage that his mandate could extend to any party to such a conflict. He would welcome guidance by the Commission as to whether he should seek to apply his mandate to acts committed by parties to an armed conflict. If so, he would appreciate further guidance on how he should determine whether such a conflict exists and what entities may be appropriately considered as parties to the conflict: should he, for example, be guided by the view of the Government of the member State concerned? Meanwhile, the Special Rapporteur will continue as appropriate to