The source information could be shared externally, confidentially, assuming both considerations are adequately taken into account (see Table 1 below). The investigation must also take into account the need to redact shared materials, not just for source-identifying information, but also for confidential work product that may appear in interview records (notes, clarifications, internal queries), as well as names of investigators, translators, intermediaries, and other sensitive information. (c) The investigation’s findings and conclusions Sharing information that came directly from a source is usually preferable to sharing the investigative body’s findings, as the latter on its own has limited value to a recipient. Still, an investigative body may choose to cooperate with external entities by providing its findings, whether factual findings or conclusions as to responsibility. For example, the investigative body may consider sharing its findings with another United Nations entity that is conducting a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy risk assessment, or with a national court that has requested them for a judicial process, or it may proactively offer them to a national vetting process.129 Before sharing, the investigative body must: (a) determine whether the finding or conclusion has passed the standard of proof adopted, such as reasonable grounds to believe; and (b) check whether any person would be put at risk by the sharing.130 For example, an investigative body may have collected sufficient information from multiple sources to find that a certain person was the commander of a detention centre, a factual finding. Or it may have concluded that the commander was responsible for crimes or violations that took place in the centre, a quasi-legal conclusion. In this example, if no person would be put at risk by the sharing, or any such risk could be adequately mitigated, the investigation could share with an external entity the name of the commander as well as the investigation’s finding that the person was in charge of the detention centre, or the conclusion that the person was responsible for crimes or violations that took place there. 131 See section 2 B, supra. A source might be put in danger, for example, if only a small number of people could know that piece of information. “Consent to share” from interviewees should not be at issue because the interviewee’s information, whether narrative or identifying, is not being shared; instead it is the investigative body’s own finding that is shared. 131 An investigative body prepared to share the name of the individual externally, along with a finding that the person was responsible for crimes or violations, should be confident that the “reasonable grounds” threshold has been met, and may consider whether a higher threshold is appropriate. 129 130 78 ATTRIBUTING INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY