national justice system in accordance with the mandate, the Commission also considered other accountability measures such as police disciplinary procedures and complaints to the national human rights institution.39 The report on Sri Lanka (2010) included explicit statements about the Panel’s understanding of accountability, guided by relevant international norms: “victims of crimes under international law have three basic rights: the right to the truth, the right to justice and the right to reparations, including through institutional guarantees of non-recurrence.”40 The report also states: “… accountability goes beyond the investigation and prosecution of serious crimes that have been committed; rather it is a broad process that addresses the political, legal and moral responsibility of individuals and institutions for past violations of human rights and dignity. Consistent with the international standards mentioned above, accountability necessarily includes the achievement of truth, justice and reparations for victims. Accountability also requires an official acknowledgment by the State of its role and responsibility in violating the rights of its citizens, when that has occurred. In keeping with United Nations policy, the Panel does not advocate a ‘one-size-fits-all’ formula or the importation of foreign models for accountability; rather it recognizes the need for accountability processes to be defined based on national assessments, involving broad citizen participation, needs and aspirations. Nonetheless, any national process must still meet international standards. Sri Lanka’s approach to accountability should, thus, be assessed against those standards and comparative experiences to discern how effectively it allows victims of the final stages of the war to realize their rights to truth, justice and reparations.”41 The final report on Libya (2011) stated: “The Commission notes that the concept of accountability incorporates various methods including criminal prosecutions, disciplinary measures, administrative procedures and victim compensation measures. Accountability should therefore not be interpreted in a narrow, restrictive way to refer only to criminal prosecutions”.42 The mandate of several commissions/missions required them to identify the persons responsible for the violations. In Darfur (2004), the Commission was required by its mandate to “identify the perpetrators of such violations with a view to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable”,43 whereas in Guinea (2009), the Commission’s mandate required it to “determine responsibilities and, where possible, identify those 39 Ibid., paras. 214–217. 40 “Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka”, 31 March 2011, para. 266. 41 Ibid., executive summary. 42 “Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Libya” (A/HRC/19/CRP.1), para. 763. 43 Security Council resolution 1564 (2004), para. 12. GUIDANCE AND PRACTICE 13