A/53/279 through their commitment to the mission follow-up procedure. With respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Special Rapporteur has benefited from an ongoing dialogue with the Permanent Mission in Geneva, but hopes that this collaboration will lead to a formal reply from the Iranian authorities. 30. In relation to his mandate and to the States that have not yet answered his requests for visits and for implementation of the follow-up procedure, the Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/74, and particularly its paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, in which the Commission encouraged all Governments to cooperate with the Commission through the pertinent thematic procedures by considering inviting thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working groups to visit their countries, upon request, and considering follow-up visits with a view to the effective implementation of recommendations by the thematic procedures concerned; invited the Governments concerned to study carefully the recommendations addressed to them under thematic procedures and to keep the relevant mechanisms informed without undue delay on the progress made towards their implementation; and requested the thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working groups to include in their reports information provided by Governments on follow-up action, as well as their own observations thereon, including in regard to both problems and improvements, as appropriate. IV. Report on communications sent by the Special Rapporteur and replies received from States since the fiftyfourth session of the Commission on Human Rights 31. This report relates to communications sent since the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights, the replies or absence of replies from the States concerned, and late replies. 32. First, however, the Special Rapporteur wishes to make the following observations: (a) Since 1995, as a result of the budgetary constraints affecting the United Nations, the reports of the special rapporteurs have been limited to 32 pages. These budgetary constraints have direct political repercussions on human rights mechanisms. The Special Rapporteur is unable not only to publish his communications and the replies received from States, but also to perform the necessary task of carrying out genuine analyses that cannot be reduced to brief theoretical and academic overviews or to reports written in telegraphic style. It must be acknowledged that there is a real contradiction between the resources available to the special rapporteurs and the many requests addressed to them by States through the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, particularly resolution 1998/18 on religious intolerance and resolution 1998/74 on thematic procedures (namely, to examine incidents and governmental actions that are incompatible with the provisions of the 1981 Declaration and to recommend remedial measures; to apply a gender perspective; to conduct in situ visits and prepare mission reports; to make recommendations for the prevention of human rights violations; to follow closely and reflect in their reports progress made by Governments in the investigations carried out within their respective mandates; to include in their reports information provided by Governments on followup action, as well as their own observations thereon, in regard to both problems and improvements; to include in their reports comments on problems of responsiveness and the result of analyses, in order to carry out their mandates even more effectively, and to include also in their reports suggestions as to areas where Governments might request relevant assistance through the programme of advisory services); (b) The communications sent by the Special Rapporteur do not cover all the incidents and governmental actions in the world that are incompatible with the 1981 Declaration. The fact that only a few States are covered in this report does not mean that other States are problem-free. Moreover, the length of a communication and/or the existence of several communications for a single State do not indicate the seriousness of the intolerance and discrimination in question. Likewise, while each communication refers to a given type of intolerance and discrimination, this does not mean that other types of violations do not occur in the same State. The communications concern cases or situations of intolerance and discrimination, but it must be borne in mind that (i) cases may represent either completely isolated manifestations which are exceptional and do not reveal an overall positive situation, or manifestations that do reveal an overall situation of intolerance and discrimination; and (ii) situations may affect freedom of religion and belief, certain dimensions of these freedoms or certain communities in the area of religion and belief. 33. Lastly, as the communications do not cover all religions and beliefs, the frequency with which certain religions and beliefs are referred to in the communications does not indicate their general situation in the world. 7