A/HRC/4/31 page 8 of that is when the information gathered is partial or even inaccurate, intervention will unfortunately not be effective. For example, in Guatemala in 1994, several American nationals were attacked owing to unfounded rumours concerning trafficking of children for organ transplantation. Other rumours have since been denounced by the media in countries such as Azerbaijan, Mozambique, Brazil and India but not all the information obtained could be assessed. 21. The issue has previously been analysed by other Special Rapporteurs, in 1991 and 1999 respectively (E/CN.4/1991/51 and E/CN.4/1999/71), but blind spots persist. This is the reason why the Special Rapporteur thought it primordial to address this issue once again in his annual report. An extensive questionnaire was thus developed on the sale of children’s organs and sent to all Member States and to intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations working on issues related to trafficking on 24 July 2006. Member States were requested to respond by 31 October 2006. 22. The questionnaire covered a number of queries on the subject. First of all, the Special Rapporteur wished to know about the framework that the Member States had elaborated. More specifically, the States and NGOs were probed on the multilateral, regional and bilateral arrangements developed in order to prevent and eliminate the sale of children’s organs. Furthermore, another number of questions were set up in order to acquire more knowledge of the national legislation applicable on that matter, the different public institutions in charge of preventing, countering and eliminating the sale of child organs and their role and activities. 23. Secondly, the Special Rapporteur enquired about the factual context occurring in the different States, particularly if there had been official reports relating to the sale of organs in general and also involving children. If so, what had been the measures undertaken? Finally, two matters were tackled: if there had been cases of abduction or disappearance of children in which they were later found (alive or dead) with missing organs; and, if reports had been published relating to the existence of religious or magic rituals involving the removal of organs. 24. As of 12 December 2006, the following Governments had responded to the questionnaire: Austria, Belarus, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Honduras, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Nicaragua, Philippines, Qatar, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). 25. The responses from Belarus and Ukraine were received on time and sent for translation. Unfortunately, these responses could not be debated in the report due to the non-receipt of the translations. As for the late responses received from Qatar and Moldova, they could also unfortunately not be considered in this report for the same reason. 26. The questionnaire was also sent to NGOs and intergovernmental organizations and replies were received from the Child Rights Information Network; World Vision International in Guatemala and Kenya; Save the Children in Guatemala, Norway, and Uganda; and Plan International in Togo, Guinea, Senegal, Mali, Ghana and West Africa. A response was also received from the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children regarding the issue of rapid response programmes, which will be discussed later in the report.