• Factual findings concerning an individual (such as a position held) may be included in a public report, irrespective of whether a right to reply was afforded, but without indicating responsibility for any crime or violation; • Individuals should not be named as responsible, or allegedly responsible, without being connected to a specific incident or incidents for which the investigative body has concluded that a crime or violation occurred. Example on reporting publicly A fact-finding mission (FFM) concludes that summary executions of captured enemy fighters took place and that a specific person, whose name is known to the FFM, was the head of a militia group implicated in the incident. However, the leadership of the group changed over time, and information conflicted as to whether this specific person was in fact the head, and in effective control of the militia, at the time of the executions. At the end of the investigation, the FFM has “reasonable grounds to believe” that the person was the leader and in effective control at the relevant times.156 In this example, the fact of executions taking place would be a violation or a crime that is reportable under the “reasonable grounds” standard. Under that same standard, the FFM might also name the militia as responsible. The FFM might also name the leader of the militia group, but as a finding of fact. The FFM could share, under the “reasonable grounds” standard, the factual finding of dates on which the person was the head of the militia. However, the FFM should not publicly describe the leader as responsible for the executions unless, at a minimum, a right of reply has been afforded. This situation could easily arise, for example if witnesses cannot recall precise dates, or if the FFM secured evidence of executions taking place both before and after the person was head of the militia, but not during that period. 156 90 ATTRIBUTING INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY