A. Objectives and scope United Nations Commissions of Inquiry (CoIs), Fact-Finding Missions (FFMs) and similar complex human rights investigations1 are regularly, and with increasing frequency, called upon to “identify those responsible” for violations and crimes falling within their mandate. Since 2011 the mandates of half of all such investigations have included some form of identification: nine included direct requests, while a further eight mandates sought “to clarify responsibility” or “to ensure accountability”.2 More recently, the Independent, Impartial International Mechanism on Syria3 was specifically mandated to build dossiers on individuals believed to be responsible for international crimes. In light of the ongoing battle against impunity, the trend appears set to continue. Yet identifying responsible parties poses complex legal and methodological challenges. Should human rights investigative bodies publicly identify those responsible, i.e., name them individually in the report? What of the right to a presumption of innocence? Or is it sufficient to identify a party, group or organizational unit as responsible? Should the investigation identify only those “most responsible”, or all alleged perpetrators? If not naming publicly, what purpose does the identification fulfil? May a CoI share its information on individuals it believes to be responsible? If so, with whom, when and under what circumstances? Many of these questions must be answered early in the life of an investigation, as they impact on methodology and resource allocation. Identifying responsible individuals requires the investigative body to be properly staffed, to have sufficient time, and to make a number of important policy and methodological choices. Despite variations in mandate language, applicable legal regimes, political context, membership, timing and budgets, the practice of CoIs, FFMs and similar complex investigations is developing in this area. Methods are taking shape and approaches The words “investigation” and “investigative body” are used throughout this text to denote United Nationsmandated CoIs, FFMs, Panels of Experts and similar bodies that have a human rights investigative mandate emanating from a United Nations entity, including investigations under OHCHR mandates undertaken from headquarters or by its field presences. 2 For example, Human Rights Council resolution 34/22 of 24 March 2017 created an independent international fact-finding mission for Myanmar “… with a view to ensuring full accountability for perpetrators ...”. The nine investigations with direct requests to identify perpetrators are: Côte d’Ivoire (2011), Libya (2011), Syria (2011-2018), Central African Republic (2014), Gaza (2014), Burundi (2015 and 2016), South Sudan (2016) and Yemen (2017). 3 Established in 2017 by General Assembly resolution 71/248. 1 10 ATTRIBUTING INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY