Attachments
Over the past few decades, commissions of inquiry have become an increasingly prominent component of international, regional, and national responses to allegations of violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in the context of armed conflicts and internal disturbances.
This development has occurred amidst a broader proliferation of monitoring, reporting, and fact-finding (MRF) mechanisms established in different forms by various mandating bodies. Indeed, entities such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG), regional organizations such as the European Union, and governments at the domestic level have mandated not only commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions but also panels of experts, mapping exercises, monitoring components of peace operations, and special rapporteurs.
This proliferation has led to efforts to review best practices used by MRF practitioners, including key methodological principles and modalities of application.
Commissions of inquiry have constituted a particular area of focus for practitioners and policymakers. The growing body of policy literature that has been generated includes various documents, such as the 2013 Siracusa Guidelines for International, Regional and National Fact-Finding Bodies, which articulates rules and principles applicable to different types of fact-finding endeavors.
The recently published document, Commissions of Inquiry and Fact-Finding Missions on International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Guidance and Practice—produced by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)—provides information about standard operating procedures and guidelines relevant to each stage of United Nations (UN) commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions.
Regarding fact-finding on a particular type of violation, the United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office led a drafting process that resulted in the International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict.
Some experts and practitioners have noted the differences in terms of context, mandates, and modalities among various MRF bodies and have cautioned against articulating generalized procedures that might not adequately account for these distinctions.
However, ongoing policy development efforts have helped to achieve a better understanding of the field of MRF and to improve the quality and credibility of MRF work.
This Handbook aims to complement existing policy literature by reviewing the practice of MRF from a different angle. It focuses on key issues faced by MRF practitioners working in the context of commissions of inquiry and addresses the more challenging methodological dilemmas facing them. In this regard, the Handbook does not intend to address exhaustively the full process of conducting MRF missions. The Handbook rather proposes a methodological approach based on the experiences of past MRF missions and established professional standards, in order to equip practitioners with the ability to draw on best professional practices.
The Handbook is also informed by the participation in its preparation of the HPCR Group of Professionals on Monitoring, Reporting, and Fact-finding, a team of highlevel experts set up by the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University.