A/HRC/4/33 page 7 facilitated the work of the Special Rapporteur in this regard, by providing him with letters of authorization signed by relevant ministries to assure his unimpeded access to all places of detention. 12. In a letter dated 27 September 2006, the Special Rapporteur expressed to the Government that in his analysis the terms of reference would not contravene Russian federal legislation, and that the visit could be carried out as planned in full compliance therewith. In particular, he cited article 38 of the law on “Institutions and Bodies that Implement Criminal Penalties in the Form of Imprisonment” which provides that representatives of international (inter-State, intergovernmental) organizations authorized to monitor human rights have the right to visit penitentiary and pretrial facilities without permission. Under this article, he noted examples of international human rights monitors that have visited detention facilities unannounced and have held private interviews with detainees in pretrial facilities and in prisons, such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women (see E/CN.4/2006/61/Add.2). 13. In a letter dated 28 September 2006, the Government argued that the terms of reference are of a non-binding nature, a question which has never been either discussed or agreed upon in an intergovernmental forum. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the rights to carry out unannounced visits or hold private interviews with detainees are not only fundamental and necessary but common sense, especially for the investigation of torture and ill-treatment (see the discussion on country visit methodology in document E/CN.4/2006/6). As such, they cannot be subject to negotiation or selective approval by States. Any suggestion to the contrary would seriously call into question the intentions behind the Government’s invitation to the Special Rapporteur. Moreover, for a Special Rapporteur on the question of torture to agree to a fact-finding visit to a country under such restrictions would only undermine the credibility and objectivity of his findings, his impartiality and independence, and give legitimacy to claims that double standards were being applied with respect to different Governments. The Special Rapporteur recalls that this was precisely the reason for the cancellation of the visit to Guantánamo Bay. 14. Since this matter could not be resolved, on 4 October, only five days before the scheduled start of the visit, the Special Rapporteur had to announce its postponement pending a timely solution, which the Government promised would be found in accordance with the terms of reference in order for this important mission to proceed. Despite repeated requests for information, no developments have been forthcoming to date. 15. As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and in view of the pledge it gave to cooperate with the special procedures, the Special Rapporteur calls upon the Russian Federation to demonstrate, by example, its commitment to human rights. He appeals to the Government to quickly find a solution to the legal issues indicated above and, in accordance with its invitation of 22 May 2006, allow him to carry out an objective visit to the Russian Federation, and the North Caucasus in particular, to investigate the situation of torture and ill-treatment, in line with the standard terms of reference of special procedures, with a view to developing a long-term process of cooperation to eradicate these practices.