A/HRC/13/39 special procedures. Sometimes, certain parts of a Government are genuinely interested in the Special Rapporteur’s assessment, while others are not. Such half-hearted invitations create a difficult situation for all actors involved, since they put pressure on the authorities to hide the real situation and to make fact-finding as difficult as possible. Sometimes, it needed considerable efforts from the Special Rapporteur to break through a “wall of silence” or a “wall of lies” which had been erected by the authorities when instructing detainees about how to interact with him. B. Follow-up to country visits 35. The Special Rapporteur has a particular interest in the development of the situation of torture and ill-treatment in countries that he or his predecessors have visited. In order to be kept informed about more recent developments, he annually compiles follow-up reports, which contain information from Governments about how they endeavour to implement recommendations. If he has the impression that Governments have a genuine interest in improving the situation by implementing at least some of his key recommendations, but lack the necessary financial means, he usually appeals to the United Nations Development Programme and other donors for assistance. 36. The Special Rapporteur fully recognizes that the follow-up to his country missions would benefit from improvement. However, follow-up to country visits is not primarily the Special Rapporteur’s task but that of the bodies to which he reports, i.e., the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. Special procedure mandate holders are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council and mandated to objectively investigate the legal and factual situation and report their findings. Strictly speaking, their task is fulfilled when they deliver reports and present them during the interactive dialogue in the respective political decision-making bodies of the United Nations. These bodies have the mandate to urge the respective Governments to implement recommendations and the political leverage for effective follow-up. Unfortunately, apart from discussing reports during interactive dialogue and using some of the recommendations in the universal periodic review, not much attention has been paid to mandate holders’ mission reports by the political bodies of the United Nations. C. Individual communications 37. The Special Rapporteur receives and sends communications concerning individual allegations of torture and ill-treatment to a considerable number of countries on an almost daily basis. Communications are based on allegations received from alleged victims and their families or lawyers, or via domestic and international NGOs and other channels. Whereas the Special Rapporteur is unable to assess from afar whether the allegations are true or not, he carefully checks the reliability of the sources and the consistency of the information provided. In his letters, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that he does not prejudge the accuracy of the allegations. Consequently, communications forwarded by the Special Rapporteur to any Government must not be interpreted as an accusation from him. Nevertheless, since he only forwards allegations or risks of torture and ill-treatment which at first sight seem credible to him, he also stresses the obligations arising under international human rights law for the respective Government to carry out, notably, a thorough and independent investigation, and asks the Governments concerned to inform him of the type of investigations conducted and their results. 38. Over five years, the Special Rapporteur has sent a total of 431 allegation letters to 107 Governments and a total of 891 urgent appeals to a total of 104 Governments. While many Governments send responses, serious investigations into the allegations of torture and GE.10-10042 9