B. Target audience Members and staff of United Nations-mandated investigations, including CoIs, FFMs and similar, must be aware of the processes involved, the ramifications for individuals or units identified, and the options and alternatives for the use of information concerning individuals allegedly responsible for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. OHCHR field presences with a monitoring mandate face similar issues, while all human rights officers (HROs) in possession of such information must be cognizant of the implications not only for the persons identified, but also for witnesses and victims and their families – who may have contributed to the investigation’s ability to make the identification and may have remained in places of risk – as well as other persons who may be impacted.8 Member States of United Nations bodies that confer mandates should also understand fully the positive and negative implications, potential uses and limits – also in cost/benefit terms – of identifying alleged perpetrators of violations and crimes. Finally, non-United Nations-mandated human rights investigations face similar issues with respect to the collection, analysis and use of investigation materials concerning individuals. For example, non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions, national commissions of inquiry and an increasing number of regional organizations, such as those under African Union auspices, are conducting investigations in which individuals may be identified.9 Nowhere is the “do no harm” principle more salient than when directly implicating individuals. Victims, witnesses and investigators have faced reprisals and threats of reprisals. 9 The procedural and substantive legal regimes of such investigations may differ significantly from those treated here, for example as regards the power to issue subpoenas, so the guidance here may be inapplicable in some areas. 8 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 13