Independent Special Commission of Inquiry for Timor-Leste (2006) “to establish the facts and circumstances relevant to incidents that took place on 28 and 29 April and 23, 24 and 25 May and related events or issues that contributed to the crisis, clarify responsibility for those events and recommend measures of accountability for crimes and serious violations of human rights allegedly committed during the mandated period.” While mandates need to be designed in the light of the situation that requires investigation and provide clarity with regard to what is expected of the commission/mission, they should always reflect international standards on human rights fact-finding, and be drafted in such a way as to enable the commission/mission to conduct its work in line with best practice methodology, without prejudging any aspects of its work. The terms of the mandate necessarily have an impact on the time frame and resources required to fulfil it. Reporting deadlines as well as resources provided by the mandating authority must thus be commensurate with the mandate and consider the circumstances under which the commission/mission is required to operate. This has not always been the case and has at times posed unnecessary difficulties for the relevant commission/ mission. For example, the Human Rights Council established the Commission of Inquiry for Côte d’Ivoire (2011) in March 2011 and required it to present a report at the next session of the Council in June 2011. The Commission had approximately six weeks in which to undertake investigations and prepare and submit a final report. In other cases, budgets have not adequately reflected the scope or tasks of the commission/mission. 1. TASK DEFINITION In determining the body’s task, mandates have required them to “establish the facts”, as in Burundi (1995)22 or to “establish the facts and circumstances”, which was the directive of the Commission of Inquiry for Timor-Leste (2006). The mandates of other bodies have required them to “investigate the situation of human rights violations” (Georgia, 1993)23 or to “investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law” (Darfur, 2004).24 The Commission of Inquiry for Côte d’Ivoire (2011) was required to 10 22 International Commission of Inquiry for Burundi, established by Security Council resolution 1012 (1995) of 28 August 1995. 23 Established by the Secretary-General in October 1993, an initiative welcomed in Security Council resolution 876 (1993) of 19 October 1993. Report of the Secretary-General’s fact-finding mission to investigate human rights violations in Abkhazia, Republic of Georgia (S/26795, annex). 24 Security Council resolution 1564 (2004), para. 12. COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY AND FACT-FINDING MISSIONS ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN LAW