standards that are being ignored by the other side. To address these criticisms, it is important for NHRIs to ensure that rebel factions are held accountable for human rights violations, in addition to holding the State accountable for its human rights obligations. Certain international rights norms apply to all combatants including insurgent groups. While a Government has the duty to protect itself and its people from violence, it does not have carte blanche. The major international agreements give Governments latitude to restrict the application of certain rights to ensure public order. There is a mechanism available to States to suspend or restrict some rights by derogating from a treaty, but States must follow formal procedures. If a State intends to restrict rights in this manner, the NHRI must press it to fulfil its responsibilities in this regard. Moreover, certain rights are not subject to derogation, and NHRIs must bring this fact to the attention of any Government that is considering restricting them. Insurgents, by definition, operate outside the legal framework of a country. In some ways, therefore, it may be impossible to hold them accountable for human rights violations in the same manner as Governments. Nonetheless, some international rights norms apply to all combatants whether State actors or not. There is also a body of opinion which holds that, if an insurgent group has the effective control of an area, it is the de facto government and therefore has the same responsibilities and is liable to the same consequences as Governments for violations of customary law. An NHRI has the responsibility to let insurgent groups know that they, too, have human rights responsibilities and will ultimately be held accountable. An NHRI must also advise the Government on how to respond to the underlying problems and tensions that have led to the conflict, since many of these will likely relate to human rights. Peacebuilding: an institution’s efforts to build peace are likely to involve at least: (a) efforts to promote dialogue between combatants; (b) efforts to promote peacebuilding mechanisms among representative communities; and (c) efforts to encourage acceptable and necessary accommodations to deal with underlying human rights issues that may be at the root of the conflict. Promoting dialogue between combatants. Resolving conflict requires the combatants to enter into a respectful dialogue. National human rights institutions may seek ways to ensure that this dialogue can start and be sustained. The fact that there is conflict means that normal channels of dialogue have failed. It may be possible, nonetheless, in the absence of these normal channels for an institution to establish itself as the interface between combatants. To do this, it must establish its credentials as an honest interlocutor. It must convince nonState actors that it is not a front for the Government; it must convince the Government that it is not a sympathizer of the insurgents. This might best be accomplished if the institution can join with other non-politicized social forces—religious, cultural, traditional leaders—to form a peace group whose sole aim is to encourage a peaceful solution without firm reference to terms and conditions. Promoting peacebuilding efforts between communities. Insurgency may be fed by animosity between different communities. An NHRI can encourage and promote peacebuilding efforts between communities that feel aggrieved. Even in the most divisive circumstances there are always moderates: NHRIs should seek them out and facilitate meetings to allow them to discuss the issues underlying the conflict, as well as ways in which peace and harmony can be restored. Representatives of church groups, NGOs promoting peace, local leaders, respected elders, all can be brought together to demonstrate that change can be achieved by other ways than conflict. 140