E/CN.4/1991/17
page 2
I.
MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK
5.
The number of communications with information on alleged cases of torture
or severe maltreatment received by the Special Rapporteur continued to
increase, in comparison with previous years. The Special Rapporteur wishes to
reiterate what he said in last year's report, viz. that this increase does not
necessarily mean that torture itself is practised on a larger scale in the
world. It may be explained by the fact that it is more widely realized that
the international community has established mechanisms to monitor violations
of basic human rights and also by the fact that a number of societies have
become more transparent in the course of time.
6.
The decision to transmit an allegation about human rights violations to a
Government is always a difficult one, but especially so in the case of
torture. Even in cases where there is a recorded pattern of torture in a
country, the question of whether a specific person has been tortured can
hardly ever be determined with absolute certainty without a careful medical
examination. In this respect the mandate on torture is different from the
mandates on enforced or involuntary disappearances and on summary or arbitrary
executions. Torture is almost invariably practised in seclusion, and the only
witnesses are the accomplices to the fact. Physical marks, if present, often
disappear or heal or can be ascribed to other causes. To that extent torture
can be said to be the most private of human rights violations.
7.
The Special Rapporteur is well aware that, precisely because of this
peculiarity, torture allegations may be made in order to tarnish a
Government's reputation and that this may be quite effective in view of the
fact that torture is generally and absolutely abhorred. When the
Special Rapporteur's report was under discussion in the Commission on
Human Rights at its 1990 session, some Government representatives accused
non-governmental organizations of making unfounded allegations of torture for
the purposes of political confrontation. The Special Rapporteur was invited
to subject the information he received to a thorough screening process lest he
would lose his credibility.
8.
Whenever the Special Rapporteur transmits allegations to a Government, he
does so on the basis of the following considerations: the alleged case
usually should correspond to the general pattern of the human rights situation
of the country concerned as recorded in documentation provided by governmental
and non-governmental institutions. If this is not the case, the allegation
will only be transmitted if it is sufficiently detailed; in such cases the
Special Rapporteur feels that he is entitled to bring it to the Government's
attention in order to enable it to investigate the matter. As for the
reliability of the source, which is normally a non-governmental organization,
it should be borne in mind that the possibility that the alleged facts have
actually occurred must always be corroborated by other, inevitably more
general, information.
9.
In this context it deserves mention that torture is often applied against
persons who are seen by the authorities as political opponents. However, the
fact that the allegations are made by politically opposed groups does not
necessarily imply that they are made merely for political purposes.