individuals will be compiled, and whether any such information will be made public or kept confidential, the investigation plan should, as a minimum, devote attention specifically to securing information that demonstrates individual responsibility. At a maximum, it may draft an entire investigation plan dedicated to gathering information on responsible individuals, especially if the mandate calls for this. The plan should be detailed, and should set out the human resources, legal foundations, witness/victim protection mechanisms, risk mitigation measures, investigative avenues, methods and priorities that will guide the investigative body’s work. It should also set out appropriate security and confidentiality protocols, which may go beyond standard procedures, for example by limiting the circulation and availability of information within the team and putting in place controls on the sharing of information relating to individual identification. (a) Whom to investigate Investigations will rarely be able to address every crime or violation under their mandate. Focus and prioritization will be required, and these should be based on the time and resources available, the manner in which the mandate was interpreted, the applicable legal framework, and context-specific factors such as access and – in armed conflict situations – the intensity of the hostilities. Level During planning, consideration should be given to the level of the individuals to be identified. There is an implicit, and at times explicit, focus on those “most responsible” or those particularly high in the command structure.80 The higher the individual’s rank or position, the more that person is able to influence events and the greater the number of people likely to be affected by their decisions. Meanwhile, information on individuals who comprise the “rank and file” might only be recorded incidentally. However, victims and witnesses usually identify “direct perpetrators” (those actually pulling the trigger), with the result that investigations may end up focusing on those individuals by default, simply because the information is more readily attainable. 80 The phrase “most responsible” may be open to interpretation. In 2016, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor published a policy note setting out its understanding: “The notion of the most responsible does not necessarily equate with the de jure hierarchical status of an individual within a structure, but will be assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the evidence [and] ... will be assessed on the basis of, inter alia, the nature of the unlawful behaviour; the degree of their participation and intent; the existence of any motive involving discrimination; and any abuse of power or official capacity.” See Office of the Prosecutor, Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritization, 15 September 2016, paras. 42-44. COLLECTING AND ANALYSING THE INFORMATION 41