It has been acknowledged that the institution of UN special rapporteurs for human rights known as the special procedures have played an important role over a long period of time in promoting and protecting human rights in some of the most difficult circumstances and on some of the most challenging issues. They have done so through not only monitoring and fact finding but also standard-setting over the past three or so decades. They have been credited for influencing significantly the elaboration, interpretation and implementation of international human law and brought the human rights work of the UN to the ordinary men and women around the globe. However, the institution of special rapporteurs itself seems to be coming under pressure not only from outside but also from inside the UN system. Currently, there is a debate taking place on the role of the special rapporteurs in the context of the review process of the Human Rights Council itself by the UN General Assembly since most of the special rapporteurs are appointed by the council to assist it in achieving the objectives set out in the General Assembly resolution of 2006 that created the council to replace the former Commission on Human Rights. Given the nature of the debate that has taken place within the council in the recent past, there are fears that some states or groupings of states may try to abolish the country special rapporteurs and undermine the significance of certain special rapporteurs especially those holding mandates relating to certain core civil and political rights by imposing additional restrictions on their freedom of action.The importance of the special rapporteur system appears evident, yet there is no consensus on good or best practice in the way that mandates should be carried out or the extent or limits of the responsibilities of governments to assist special rapporteurs. Moreover, there is limited systematic scholarly examination of the nature and impact of the role of the special rapporteur in international law. It is then timely to examine the role of the special rapporteurs in the development and promotion of international human rights norms and this is what the articles included in this special issue seek to do. It is in this context that the Centre for International Governance at the School of Law of the University of Leeds decided to organise an international research workshop designed to examine closely the role of special rapporteurs in the development and promotion of international human rights norms. The idea was to understand the role and challenges that the special rapporteurs

This article examines a vital element of the special rapporteur on torture's (SRT) mandate that of monitoring and the reports that have been produced as a result of fact-finding missions (FFMs). Over a 25 year period, the SRTs have visited 47 states and the reports present an interesting mosaic of the diversity of state compliance with regard to the prohibition itself and also the terms of reference of state visits. The reports reveal not only the unequalled access that the SRTs have had to places of detention and systems that foster torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment but also that the impact of monitoring is enhanced by the public reporting of these missions. However this article argues that there is a need to develop further follow-up FFMs mechanisms to place pressure on states to implement the recommendations of the SRT. The following examines the individual reports of states between 1985 and September 2010 to consider the reported challenges that have faced the SRTs in relation to their FFMs. IntroductionThe main challenge now facing human rights bodies is effective monitoring of states. 1 The shift of emphasis from norm development towards identifying compliance with human rights obligations is in many ways a seismic one and presents an on-going challenge. Given that states are eager to denounce torture, but many are found to be directly involved or complicit in its practice, the special procedures have a vital role to play in uncovering the phenomena of torture from its subterranean depths.This article will argue that the capacity of the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (SRT) 2 to access, observe and report on individual legal and administrative systems for the purposes of his mandate relies heavily on fact-finding missions (FFMs). Effective FFMs place the SRT in a unique position for monitoring purposes. The following will examine the individual mission reports of 47 states visited by the SRT over a 25-year period in order to explore the nature of fact-finding that has had to develop in line with the challenges by the numerous methods and settings that torture manifests itself. The aim is not only to understand the characteristics of fact-finding, given that opposition from states is often manifest, but also explore how monitoring may be progressed. Individual SRTs have written about their experiences on FFMs in their reports and in journal articles, but this article's focus is an objective one that seeks to question the credibility of FFMs by examining the reports themselves.The objective of FFMs is to gather information in order to assess states' implementation of the obligations under the prohibition and recommend to governments measures to eradicate torture and other ill treatment. The SRT is able to examine closely environments that foster the practice of torture and make specific recommendations accordingly.The following examines the FFM reports of the four special rapporteurs on torture over a 25-year per...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract