A/HRC/5/11 Page 4 Thus there is substance in the statement by the Israeli Ambassador, Itzhak Levanon, on 22 March 2007 in the Human Rights Council that I have already reported on the subject covered by resolution S-1/1 and that the Human Rights Council has already considered it. It is difficult not to agree with the Israeli Ambassador that the purpose of resolution S-1/1 “has already been effectively realized”. 13. Despite my report to the Human Rights Council on 22 March 2007, the Human Rights Council on 27 March adopted resolution 4/2 calling for the implementation of resolution S-1/1. By the time I received notice of this resolution I had already made plans to visit the Occupied Palestinian Territory on 27 May in my capacity as Special Rapporteur. For the purpose I had already written to the Israeli Ambassador informing him of my visit, expressing the expectation that no obstacles would be placed in the way of my visit, and assuring him that “I shall not be visiting in pursuance of resolution S-1/1” but in my capacity as Special Rapporteur. In the light of this assurance I informed the President of the Council that “as a man of his word, I cannot renege on this assurance” by going to the OPT under the terms of resolution S-1/1. (Subsequently, I had to cancel this mission as a result of the fact that I suffered a heart attack on 29 April and was placed under doctor’s orders not to travel.) 14. In my view the mission contemplated is obsolete and impractical for the following reasons: (a) The events that resolution S-1/1 instructed me to investigate have passed into recent history and been overtaken by other events. For instance, the destruction of the Gaza power plant on 27 June was to be a major focus of investigation. Today the power plant has been substantially repaired. Any investigative mission visiting Gaza at present would therefore examine other more pressing problems – such as recent air strikes on Gaza; (b) The events that I was expected to report on have already been reported on in my report on Gaza. There would be little to add to this report; (c) Resolution S-1/1 was seriously flawed by reason of its failure to contain a reporting obligation – unlike resolution 3/1 establishing the mission to be led by Archbishop Tutu. Consequently, opponents of resolution S-1/1 might legitimately argue that any report in terms of the resolution was ultra vires the resolution; (d) The present security situation in Gaza precludes the implementation of resolution S1/1. I have been informed by United Nations Security that no visits to Gaza have been permitted for some time and that it is unlikely that they will be permitted in the foreseeable future; (e) There is no prospect that the Government of Israel will consent to a mission under resolution S-1/1. 15. For the above reasons, I recommend that the Human Rights Council accept that the mission contemplated by resolution S-1/1 has not been implemented and cannot be implemented. Moreover no purpose would be served by carrying out such a mission a year after the events in question and after a full report has already been made by the Special Rapporteur in his capacity as Special Rapporteur. 16. I urge the Human Rights Council in future to seriously consider the wisdom of sending someone who is already a Special Rapporteur on a fact-finding mission to the State in respect on which he or she is Special Rapporteur. In most circumstances, the Special Rapporteur will have a difficult relationship with that State, which will be exacerbated by requiring him or her to lead a fact-finding mission to the State in question. This may lead the State to place obstacles in the