Approach 3: Identifying individuals in public reports All or selected parts of the information on allegedly responsible individuals is set out in the report submitted to the mandating body or otherwise published. “In most cases, the Commission has withheld the names of individuals believed to bear responsibility for violations. This is partly to prevent reprisals and partly to avoid prejudicing future fair trials.” – Libya CoI (A/HRC/19/68), para. 14. Identifying particular individuals as responsible in a public report In the text of the report itself, practice generally is to include the information known on each incident investigated, together with information that identifies the party or entity implicated. It is not generally the practice to set out the names of individuals, as the factors that weigh against public revelation noted in this guidance are substantial.139 Perhaps the most important consideration flows from the Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity: “Before a commission identifies perpetrators in its report, the individuals concerned shall be entitled to the following guarantees: “(a) The commission must try to corroborate information implicating individuals before they are named publicly; “(b) The individuals implicated shall be afforded an opportunity to provide a statement setting forth their version of the facts either at a hearing convened by the commission while conducting its investigation or through submission of a document equivalent to a right of reply for inclusion in the commission’s file.”140 Since 2000, only three commissions of inquiry have included names of allegedly responsible individuals in their public reporting: Timor-Leste (2006), Report of 2 October 2006, paras. 113-133; Guinea (2009), Guinea Report (S/2009/693), para. 215; and Myanmar (2018), Report of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar (A/HRC/39/64), para. 92. In these instances, unique circumstances attest to the exceptional nature of the public release. For Timor-Leste it was a particular quasi-international legal process that was in place, while for Guinea it was the ability to interview all alleged perpetrators. For Myanmar, the names published were already in the public domain and it was decided that their inclusion in the report would have a deterrent effect on ongoing violations. Most CoIs refer publicly only to the party or entity implicated, or for example to “government security forces”. See, for example, Sri Lanka Report (A/HRC/30/CRP.2), para. 213. Note that this report also referred to responsible entities in more detail when it had the information, for example in paras. 64 and 227. 140 Impunity Principles, principle 9 (emphasis added). For an example, see Guinea CoI, supra note 89, where the interviews of individuals alleged to be responsible were included in the report. The full citation is at note 51. 139 HOW TO GET THE MOST FROM THE INFORMATION 83