One crucial element of any criminal proceing is the disclosure of evidence to other parties, most importantly the Defence. Material and information collect by commissions of inquiry may support criminal proceings if informants provide full and inform consent for disclosure of their information. But obtaining such consent is a delicate exercise, in light of providers.
The consequences of naming names
To be carefully consider. On occsion, public naming may have accountability benefits. For instance, the Guinea Commission’s decision to publicly identify high-level suspects plac the Government on notice of the ne to investigate. The fact of publication arguably made it easier to ascertain whether authorities were investigating those identifi as ‘most responsible’, rather chinese overseas british data than low-level offenders. This may also have assist the ICC Prosecutor’s preliminary examination into Guinea. In 2013, the Prosecutor report that several individuals identifi by the Commission had been indict, indicating Guinea’s genuine intention to bring those responsible to justice [para. 193].
Yet public naming may
detrimental consequences, first and foremost for those nam. The UN Updat Principles to Combat Impunity recognise that such individuals have a right of reply. In addition, prosecutions may not be perceiv as truly independent if indictments are limit to individuals identifi by other agencies. While in many cases an inquiry report may be the only available authoritative record of victims’ experiences, if a commission positions itself within a rule of law framework, it should not try to replace formal justice mechanisms. On a practical the most stable and universal level, commissions’ budgetary and time constraints would usually make such an endeavour impossible. Nor can commissions provide comprehensive measures to protect witnesses and victims from retaliation. Most commissions have sought to mitigate these concerns by confidentially identifying The mobile lead limit possibility of suspects (e.g. Darfur Commission Report, para. 526). In general, public naming should remain an exceptional measure.