E/CN.4/1993/26 page 10 the investigation and the decision taken with respect to a complaint, the grounds for this decision and, if the allegation is found to be accurate, the measures taken. 23. A number of the replies received are more or less in conformity with these requirements. Other replies, however, contain a mere denial of the alleged facts. Even if the allegations were false, the Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that such replies cannot be deemed satisfactory. As he said in his previous report, the sustained campaign of the international community against torture makes it necessary for all Governments to take allegations about torture seriously and to look into each and every case which is brought to their attention (E/CN.4/1992/17, para. 10). 24. When a Government of a country which is mentioned in this report has submitted a report in the course of the present year to the Committee against Torture and the Committee has considered that report, reference is made to the relevant documents. The Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that the information provided in these documents is a useful addition to the information contained in the present report. 25. Twice the Special Rapporteur had to send an urgent appeal pursuant to Commission resolution 1992/59 on behalf of persons who had cooperated with representatives of human rights bodies of the United Nations and with regard to whom fear had been expressed that they might be subjected to retaliatory measures, including torture. It would be sad indeed if people were victimized for doing exactly what the United Nations expects them to do. 26. The Special Rapporteur this year did not receive an invitation to visit a country, although he approached some Governments when the situation in the country concerned appeared to make such a visit advisable. The Special Rapporteur feels that too many Governments still see such an invitation as an admission that torture is wilfully condoned in the country concerned. He wished to reiterate what he has said before: nobody knows better than he how difficult it is to eradicate torture. He therefore feels that he would perform his function in a half-hearted way if he confined himself to transmitting allegations to Governments without offering advice to them on how to fight effectively the phenomenon of torture. 27. During its forty-eighth session the Commission was addressed by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Sudan. On that occasion the Minister stated that anybody could come to his country and inform himself about the human rights situation there. On 3 March 1992 the Special Rapporteur wrote a letter to the Government of the Sudan in which he asked whether this statement could be seen as an invitation to him to visit the country. On 23 November 1992 he received a reply from the Minister of Justice, the content of which is reflected in paragraphs 412-414 below. The Minister said that access to prisons had already been granted to Western Ambassadors in Khartoum and to representatives of the ACP countries and the EEC Parliamentary Assembly, and that he had informed the Chief Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Special Rapporteur's willingness to visit the country.