A/76/168 undertaken by national human rights institutions, driven by the pursuit of accountability and the vindication of victims’ rights. They are an especially potent tool for investigating patterns and systematic or widespread practices of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, often employed in States emerging from conflict or in a repressive regime. According to previous Special Rapporteur Juan E. Méndez: Unlike other mechanisms commonly engaged in the aftermath of allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, such as criminal investigations and prosecutions, commissions of inquiry provide unique opportunities for a deeper understanding of the underlying context in which violations were committed, review of governmental policies, practices and institutional shortcomings, truth telling and contributing to the healing of victim communities, and independent expert recommendations on reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. 30 33. Commissions of inquiry can uncover distinct information from what is disclosed through formal criminal investigation and prosecution, or civil proceedings. In particular, they tend to “delve more deeply and broadly into the relevant facts and circumstances that led to the violations than a prosecutorial investigative authority would”, helping “to establish a more complete picture of how and why torture occurred by analysing not just the human, legal and political conse quences of a State policy of torture but also by revealing insights into wider patterns of violations, institutional involvement and responsibility, and command responsibility”. Moreover, these commissions can make use of information that is not admissible in a court of law because the evidentiary standards applicable are not as stringent or rigid. 31 34. An important dimension of accountability beyond the strictly juridical sphere is the pursuit of acknowledgement and truth, including historical truth and reparation, a dimension that may be missed if the focus is placed solely on the legal process, whether criminal, civil or administrative. Given the ubiquity of torture and ill treatment throughout history and the world, a meaningful pursuit of accountabili ty for torture and ill-treatment should involve a historical reckoning with practices of torture and ill-treatment, seeking truth and reparation, including effective guarantees of non-repetition. One mechanism by which such an endeavour can be pursued are commissions of inquiry which operate in line with the Istanbul Protocol and the recommendations previously made by this mandate. 32 35. An important element towards achieving accountability for torture and ill treatment is the acknowledgment that such crimes took place. An example of such practice is the apology of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Mau movement veterans, who were tortured while held in detention camps by the Government of the United Kingdom in the 1950s, admitting that “Kenyans were subject to torture and other forms of ill treatment at the hands of the colonial administration. The British government sincerely regrets that these abuses took place, and that they marred Kenya’s progress towards i ndependence. Torture and ill treatment are abhorrent violations of human dignity which we unreservedly condemn.” 33 Such acknowledgments can be an important first step towards accountability, truth and reconciliation, including reparation and rehabilitation of victims and their relatives. 36. The Special Rapporteur calls for the adoption of a systematic and comprehensive approach to accountability for torture and ill-treatment, on both the __________________ 30 31 32 33 12/23 A/HRC/19/61, para. 78. Ibid., paras. 52 and 53. Ibid., paras. 47–77 and 78–79. William Hague, statement to Parliament on settlement of Mau claims, 6 June 2013, available at www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-to-parliament-on-settlement-of-mau-mau-claims. 21-09914