A/HRC/10/3 page 20 officials has in some instances constituted a form of encouragement or even support.67 In the view of the Special Rapporteur, the responsibility of the receiving State may be triggered also by even more passive and geographically distant forms of creating a demand for intelligence information obtained through internationally wrongful means. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur believes that the active or passive participation by States in the interrogation of persons held by another State constitutes an internationally wrongful act if the State knew or ought to have known that the person was facing a real risk of torture68 or other prohibited treatment, including arbitrary detention.69 3. Sending and receiving intelligence for operational use 55. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that not only active participation in interrogations where people are tortured would constitute a violation of human rights law, but also taking advantage of the coercive environment. At a minimum, States which know or ought to know that they are receiving intelligence from torture or other inhuman treatment, or arbitrary detention, and are either creating a demand for such information or elevating its operational use to a policy, are complicit in the human rights violations in question.70 The Special Rapporteur believes that reliance on information from torture in another country, even if the information is obtained only for operational purposes, inevitably implies the “recognition of lawfulness” of such practices and therefore triggers the application of principles of State responsibility.71 Hence, States that receive information obtained through torture or inhuman and degrading treatment are complicit in the commission of internationally wrongful acts. Such involvement is also irreconcilable with the obligation erga omnes of States to cooperate in the eradication of torture. 56. States also claim that in practice it is difficult to assess under what conditions the information has been gathered: intelligence is usually not shared as raw intelligence, but as a refined product. While the Special Rapporteur recognizes that this is done as a matter of convenience, he is concerned that this practice also is maintained in order to give intelligence services the possibility of denying responsibility for the use of information that has been obtained in breach of international law. 67 This is particularly the case if - as alleged in Pakistan - persons are held at the request and with the approval of foreign agents. Equally, the Arar Inquiry considered the sending of a team of investigators to speak to the Syrian Intelligence Services SMI to be highly problematic. 68 See analogously, ICTY Furundzija Appeal Judgement (21 July 2000), paras. 115-120 and General Assembly resolution 56/83, annex, International Law Commission draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, arts. 40-41. 69 See also Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, principle 21, para. 1. 70 See also the findings of the Eminent Jurist Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, forthcoming report, chapter IV, part 3.2. 71 General Assembly resolution 56/83, annex, International Law Commission draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, arts. 40-41.