E/CN.4/1993/26 page 9 17. Of course, a Government may feel that it is useful to invite the Special Rapporteur for an investigative visit to see for himself that the allegations transmitted to the Government are baseless or in order to show the international community that it is willing to cooperate in the eradication of torture. Even if some of the allegations were to be found correct, the report on such an investigative visit should be focused on recommendations to improve the situation in that country. Although geared to a common goal, the eradication of torture, the various mandates are complementary as a result of their completely different character. 18. Would the establishment of a system of periodic visits to places of detention with an infrastructure of its own lead to an overlap? The main thrust of such a system is preventive. Regular inspection of detention places by independent experts, either on a national or on an international level, is bound to have a prophylactic effect on the occurrence of torture. In particular, visits by international experts will lead to recommendations of a very concrete nature; since the visits will be periodical, the experts will be in an excellent position to see whether their recommendations have been complied with and what results can be ascertained from such compliance. On the universal level this would be a completely new instrument in the fight against torture and, therefore, would be complementary to the existing mechanisms. Such a new instrument is far from superfluous in view of the fact that this fight has been far from successful until now. If they cooperate closely and exchange information whenever possible, the establishment of a system of visits would make all mechanisms more effective. 19. Since the finalization of last year's report the Special Rapporteur sent 44 letters to 43 Governments. In these letters about 700 cases of alleged torture were transmitted to the Governments concerned. If the information received contained not only concrete allegations of torture but also a critical analysis of a more general nature, this information was also brought to the attention of the Governments with the request to comment on this analysis. 20. Seventy-nine urgent appeals were sent to 31 Governments dealing with roughly 300 individuals as well as several groups of persons with regard to whom fears of torture had been expressed. 21. The Special Rapporteur approached a total of 55 Governments asking for their comments and received replies from only 27 Governments; moreover, he received from eight Governments replies dealing with cases which were mentioned in previous reports. Many of the replies received, however, do not refer to all the cases transmitted by the Special Rapporteur. It should be kept in mind, however, that a number of letters were dispatched rather late in the year and that Governments need time to investigate allegations. 22. In his letter the Special Rapporteur specifies in detail the kind of information he needs. The reply should not only contain information on the accuracy of the allegation and relevant factual circumstances but also on the authority responsible for the investigation, the result of any medical examination and the identity of the person who performed it, the outcome of