International monitoring bodies such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) function on the basis of the assumption that member States support their activities and share the same objective, that is, to eradicate all forms of torture and ill-treatment in closed institutions that are under state control. In practice, the CPT submits reports to the member States it has visited and initiates a dialogue with States on how to improve the situation in light of its findings and recommendations. But why, then, are findings sometimes contested and recommendations neglected? Why is there not more compliance? In this article, we will explore a number of strategies that state authorities deploy when they deal with information that is felt to be annoying, troubling or threatening. The article draws on a study of the published interactions between the CPT and Belgium covering a period of almost two decades (1993–2012).