The mandates for the Central African Republic, Libya, Syria, Gaza (2014) and Darfur CoIs contained similar language.14 Investigative bodies have always interpreted such language to include the identification of those allegedly responsible at the individual level.15 That noted, identifying individuals will always be in addition to identifying the responsible State, entity thereof, or non-State actor, as State responsibility remains at the forefront of human rights law. Mandates of other investigations, such as those conducted by panels of experts16 and human rights field presences, have also included language giving rise to the identification of responsible individuals. For example, the mandate for the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) reads: “[E]mphasizing that all those responsible for all such violations and abuses must be swiftly apprehended, brought to justice and held accountable ... “Support and work with the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to arrest and bring to justice those allegedly responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and violations of international humanitarian law and violations or abuses of human rights in the country, including leaders of armed groups, including through cooperation with States of the region and the International Criminal Court.”17 Central African Republic, Security Council resolution 2127 (2013): “to help identify the perpetrators of such violations and abuses, point to their possible criminal responsibility and to help ensure that those responsible are held accountable.” Libya (A/HRC/RES/S-15/1): “where possible, to identify those responsible, to make recommendations, in particular, on accountability measures.” Syria (A/HRC/ RES/S-17/1): “to identify those responsible with a view to ensuring that perpetrators of violations, including those that may constitute crimes against humanity, are held accountable.” Gaza (A/HRC/RES/S-21/1): “to identify those responsible, to make recommendations, in particular on accountability measures ...” Darfur, Security Council resolution 1564 (2004): “to identify the perpetrators of such violations with a view to ensure that those responsible are held accountable.” 15 This is true even though not all CoIs have actually identified individuals despite having been tasked with doing so. See Gaza (2014) (A/HRC/29/52), para. 10 (“Such a standard [Reasonable grounds] is lower than that required in criminal trials; the commission therefore does not make any conclusions with regard to the responsibility of specific individuals for alleged violations of international law.”). OHCHR’s Guidance and Practice publication sets out how other CoIs have responded to calls for accountability in their mandates: see p. 9. 16 For example, the panel established to sanction individuals involved in North Korea’s nuclear programme: see Security Council resolution 1874 (2009), para. 26 (in support of the Committee established under Security Council resolution 1718 (2006) or the United Nations Group of Experts, established by resolution 1533 (2004), on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 17 Security Council resolution 2277 (2016), preamble, and paras. 11-12, 16, 20 and 35 (ii) (d). 14 16 ATTRIBUTING INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY