A/HRC/4/20 page 6 2. Outstanding requests for visits 11. As of December 2006 I had made requests to visit 29 countries and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Of those 29, only 5 countries - Guatemala, Israel, Lebanon, Peru and the Philippines - have actually proceeded with plans for a visit. The visit to the Philippines is scheduled for February 2007, the visit to Peru was postponed for technical reasons, and the Palestinian Authority has issued an invitation. Singapore has requested further information. 12. The responses of the remaining 23 countries have ranged from complete silence, through formal acknowledgement, to acceptance in principle but without meaningful follow-up. Particularly troubling is the fact that seven Council members have failed to issue requested invitations: Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia. In some cases the relevant requests were first made some six years ago. It is noteworthy that the General Assembly responded to this situation in December 2006 by urging “all States, in particular those that have not done so, to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur so that his mandate can be carried out effectively, including by favourably and rapidly responding to requests for visits, mindful that country visits are one of the tools for the fulfilment of the mandate …”.5 13. The remaining States that have so far failed to respond affirmatively to requests for a visit are: Brazil, Central African Republic, El Salvador, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal, Peru, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Yemen. 14. For a comprehensive list of the status of all outstanding requests, see annex 1. C. The situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran 15. The Islamic Republic of Iran has issued a “standing invitation” to the special procedures but has repeatedly failed to respond to my requests that dates for a visit be set, despite an oral exchange during the third session of the Council, several high-level meetings and an extensive correspondence. In my annual report to the Commission and the Council in 2006 (E/CN.4/2006/53 and addenda) I drew particular attention to this situation. 16. Between August 2004 and March 2006 I sent 12 communications, involving nine boys and six girls who had been sentenced to death in Iran for crimes committed when they were under 18. Three girls were sentenced for murder and three others for “acts contrary to chastity”. Four boys were sentenced for murder, one for drug trafficking, three for abduction and rape, and one for attempted hijacking. According to the available information four juvenile offenders have been executed and two acquitted. Five other death sentences are “on hold” and one is under review. The status of the remaining three cases is unclear. 17. The information received is clearly credible and there is every reason to believe that the Iranian judiciary is freely ignoring the prohibition on the juvenile death penalty. This constitutes a clear violation of Iran’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There is no other country in the world in relation to which I regularly receive allegations of this type. This is not surprising, since the