De jure versus de facto leaders When assessing whether a given commander is in “effective control” of subordinates implicated in crimes and international humanitarian law violations (see “Command Responsibility”, above), an investigative body must not rely solely on de jure chains of command. It may be that the commander within the formal hierarchy has little real control, while the individual truly in charge is a militia leader or someone outside the formal chain of command.81 Information from insiders or defectors can be particularly valuable in proving effective control (see Annex III).82 Impartiality The professional obligations of all United Nations personnel require independence, impartiality and objectivity. This means in principle that the investigation should cast a wide net and give no consideration to who gets caught in it. Nor are United Nations-mandated investigations “adversarial” in the common law sense; they should have no motivation to prove or disprove violations or criminal conduct. In addition to seeking out information that implicates individuals, therefore, the investigative body should also be aware of the potential for information that may exonerate a person. The investigation should strive to hear all sides of the story, including by interviewing individuals who are implicated, assuming they can be safely accessed and that such an interview does not place sources or other individuals at undue risk. [See text box below: Interviewing allegedly responsible individuals.] This does not mean that the results of identification have to be “balanced” in numbers, but rather that an equal effort to identify is to be made on all sides of a political divide, including by actively counterbalancing if information on perpetrators from one side is simply easier to find than information on perpetrators from the other. In the end, the findings are made as objectively as possible, based on the sum total of information gathered. The Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema (Trial Judgement), ICTR-95-1A-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 7 June 2001, para. 39 (“Decisive criterion in determining who is a superior is his or her ability, as demonstrated by duties and competence, to effectively control his or her subordinates.”). 82 Particularly valuable are witnesses who are able to describe how orders were given and carried out, and by whom. Examples of a commander disciplining subordinates, with what means and for what purposes, is relevant. Carrying out disciplinary measures shows that the commander not only had control but was wielding it. 81 COLLECTING AND ANALYSING THE INFORMATION 43