regional human rights courts26 to support factual and legal positions or to trigger investigations. Human rights field presences, within the scope of their “fight against impunity” and “accountability” mandates, regularly share information with judicial authorities, in particular when supporting those investigations. National courts exercising either domestic or universal jurisdiction may be proceeding against individuals, or investigating incidents, identified from such investigation reports. The “International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism on international crimes committed in the Syrian Arab Republic” has been set up to, inter alia, “prepare files to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings ... in national, regional or international courts”, doing so “in close cooperation with” the Syria CoI.27 Other countries are prosecuting international crimes based on information from such investigations. In response to one of the many requests for assistance it received, the Syria CoI provided information that assisted a domestic court in determining at what point hostilities had crossed over into a non-international armed conflict. Information of a confidential nature (including interview notes) created by human rights investigative bodies is not normally used in court directly. Rather, its use is most commonly to provide “lead information” to help a party undertake its own investigation. Materials may also help prove contextual points or resolve jurisdictional questions, or may be used in scoping or “mapping” activities undertaken by parties. As set out in more detail below (see “How to get the most from the information”), should any party seek to use such documents or information, human rights investigative bodies must carefully weigh protection concerns for all those involved. 3. Sanctions lists Particularly where accountability in a judicial framework is unlikely, restrictive measures may be imposed on individuals identified during an investigation. For example, an investigative body may choose to recommend the imposition of such measures to United Nations bodies. For example the European Court of Human Rights in L.M. and others v. Russia (2015) cited three paragraphs of CoI Syria’s eighth report to support its finding that a violation of the right to life and the right to be free from torture would be violated by expelling asylum applicants back to Syria. See also a similar case from the same period: A.H. and J.K. v. Cyprus, Applications nos. 41903/10 and 41911/10, European Court of Human Rights, 21 July 2015, para. 121. 27 General Assembly resolution 71/248, (11 January 2017), para. 4. Its other main task is to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of violations. Ibid. 26 20 ATTRIBUTING INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY