A/HRC/38/44/Add.3 approximately 61 per cent. This rate is slightly lower than that of the system-wide reply rate for special procedures communications, which reached 68 per cent in 2017. However, it should be noted that some of the responses included in this number are purely procedural in nature. 11. During the reporting period, nearly three quarters of States replied to one or more of the communications addressed to them (39 out of 55). The Special Rapporteur would like to thank all States who have responded substantively and in a timely manner to all or some of the communications sent. The assessment of individual cases in which the Special Rapporteur has intervened is an essential part of her work. Government responses allow for a greater understanding of the cases, policies, and circumstances. The Governments of Bahrain, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Hungary, Italy, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Viet Nam replied substantively (addressing all or some of the questions raised) and within the required deadline to all the communications addressed to them during the reporting period. 12. A number of States replied substantively to some of the communications sent to them. They include Afghanistan, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America. A handful of States did not submit a timely reply to any of the communications transmitted to them, or have submitted merely an acknowledgement of receipt, including Cameroon, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, India, Israel, Libya, the Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen. The responses from some of these States have arrived after the required deadline and for that reason fall outside the reporting period of the present report. 13. In its resolution 35/15, the Human Rights Council urged States “[t]o cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his or her tasks, to supply all necessary information requested by him or her and to react appropriately and expeditiously to his or her urgent appeals, and those Governments that have not yet responded to communications transmitted to them by the Special Rapporteur to do so without further delay”. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur reiterates her appeal to all Governments to respond substantively to communications in a timely manner so as to assist and cooperate with her mandate efficiently in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 35/15. In all instances where no substantive responses were received, the Special Rapporteur urges Governments to provide them as soon as possible. 14. During the reporting period, the Special Rapporteur also sent communications to three non-State actors including a corporation (Anglo-American), de facto authorities in Sana’a, Yemen, and the European Union. She thanks the European Union for the substantive response received and notes that an acknowledgement of receipt has been received from Anglo American.4 She regrets that no response has been received from the de facto authorities in Sana’a,Yemen. 15. The following table reflects the number of communications sent to each State and the number of replies of a substantive nature received within the required deadline. Such replies comprise both substantive replies and replies that address some substantive issues. Acknowledgements of receipt are not considered as a reply for the purpose of this table, as they do not provide an effective response to the questions raised.5 4 5 6 Substantive responses have also been received from Anglo American outside the reporting period. With the sole exception of the response received in relation to the letter transmitted to Mongolia on 14 August 2017 (case no. MNG 1/2017) since the purpose of this communication was to welcome the Government’s decision to abolish the death penalty and did not request a response. Therefore, the acknowledgement or receipt received from Mongolia has been considered as a substantive response.