A/HRC/13/39 31. The purpose of country missions is very simple. The Special Rapporteur tries to assist Governments in their efforts to eradicate torture and to improve prison conditions. Such assistance is only possible on the basis of thorough and objective fact-finding and assessment of the respective needs for reform. In order to evaluate the legal and factual situation of torture and ill-treatment in the countries concerned, the Special Rapporteur must enjoy all diplomatic privileges and immunities of experts on mission as specified in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, as well as freedom of inquiry in the territory of the respective countries, the right to speak with all stakeholders, including high-level Government officials, members of parliament, judges, prosecutors, police and prison officials, representatives of national human rights institutions, academia and NGOs and other civil society actors. Most important, of course, are unrestricted and confidential interviews with victims and witnesses and full access to relevant documents. Since torture usually takes places behind closed doors, his terms of reference also include unannounced visits to all place of detention and confidential interviews with detainees and prison staff. 32. Furthermore, he is accompanied on visits by highly professional teams of human rights experts, doctors (in particular forensic experts), interpreters, security officers and other United Nations staff who must enjoy the same rights, diplomatic privileges and immunities. In order to document cases of torture and ill-treatment in accordance with the respective provisions of the Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and professional rules of experts in the field of human rights and forensic science, the team also uses electronic devices, photo, audio and video equipment inside detention facilities. These terms of reference are commonsense requirements for any effective and objective factfinding efforts. 33. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur was often confronted with substantial efforts by Governments to obstruct his fact-finding activities by subjecting him to extensive surveillance and bureaucratic hurdles, demanding that he inform them in advance which facilities he wished to inspect and granting unannounced visits only after long and difficult negotiations; denying him access to certain detention facilities; preventing him from speaking in private with detainees, victims and witnesses; extensively preparing detention facilities and instructing detainees about the way they should interact (or not) with him, etc. His task is to independently assess, to the best of his abilities, conditions of detention and instances of torture as they are in reality. All efforts of the authorities aimed at falsifying the situation make his task of objective fact-finding much more difficult and may even be counterproductive, as they naturally raise suspicions that the Government has something to hide. There is no country where there is no risk of torture and ill-treatment or prison conditions that could not be improved. 34. If Governments wish to use the Special Rapporteur’s findings and reports as a solid basis for a comprehensive needs assessment aimed at improving the situation, it is in their own interest to allow him to carry out his work as smoothly and effectively as possible. In practice, only relatively few countries, notably Denmark and Uruguay, enabled him to conduct his fact-finding without any particular interference or obstruction. The lessons seem clear: as an independent expert, the Special Rapporteur has no interest other than to objectively assess the situation of torture and ill-treatment in countries that invite him, with the aim of assisting the respective Governments in their efforts to improve the situation. This aim can only be achieved if Governments are genuinely interested in soliciting an objective assessment from an external expert by engaging in an open and frank dialogue based on mutual trust and respect. Governments have no obligation to invite the Special Rapporteur. Nevertheless, it seems that several Governments invited him for other reasons, such as earlier pledges to the Human Rights Council in order to be elected and a general political desire to show to the international community that they actively cooperate with 8 GE.10-10042