E/CN.4/1993/26 page 7 Security of Mankind, prepared by the International Law Commission. It is now generally accepted that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm which under no circumstances may be encroached upon. 11. With regard to those States which have not ratified the two conventions which contain the prohibition of torture (the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1984 Convention against Torture), the Special Rapporteur is the only available mechanism; the number of States which have ratified neither convention is still regrettably high. 12. More important than the difference in "geographical" scope, however, is the difference in character between the various mandates. The treaty-based bodies (Human Rights Committee and Committee against Torture) monitor the compliance of the States parties with their treaty obligations; because of the far more detailed provisions of the Convention, reports to be submitted periodically by the parties have to contain more information than reports submitted under the International Covenant. Under both, the Committee can also deal with individual complaints, whenever its competence to do so is recognized by the States concerned. Finally, the Committee against Torture is entitled to carry out an inquiry in cases of a systematic practice of torture whenever its competence to do so is not explicitly excluded. In all these cases, the essential task of the mechanism is to determine whether a State party is complying with or has complied with its obligations under the treaty. Its function can therefore be characterized as quasi-judicial. If it comes to the conclusion that a treaty obligation has been violated, it gives its view as to whether the State party is responsible for the violation. A State is not responsible as long as it is in a position to redress a wrongful act committed by its organs. It is exactly for that reason that an individual complaint is not admissible if the local remedies have not been exhausted unless the Committee concludes that these local remedies are futile. The inevitable consequence of the need to exhaust local remedies is that a case of torture normally will be considered by the Committee years after it has been committed. Its view will be relevant for the question of whether the State concerned is under an obligation to pay compensation. 13. If we look at the Special Rapporteur's mandate we see a completely different picture. According to the mandate as formulated in the resolution which established it (resolution E/CN.4/1985/33), the Special Rapporteur has to report to the Commission, a body composed of government representatives, on "his activities regarding the question of torture, including the occurrence and the extent of its practice, together with his conclusions and recommendations". 14. In order to be able to report on the occurrence and extent of the practice of torture, he is entitled to receive information from Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. The greater part of the information provided by non-governmental organizations deals with specific cases of alleged torture. He (like other thematic mandates) can bring this information to the attention of the Government concerned and ask for its comments. When doing so, as well as when reporting on this correspondence to the Commission, he does not take a stand on whether such allegations are well-founded. He merely requests the Government to look into the matter and to see to it that, if the outcome of the inquiry confirms that the allegation