Starting the investigation After the complaint is officially recorded, it is assigned to an investigation officer, who notifies the parties. The principles that apply to all institutions also apply to quasi-jurisdictional NHRIs. This means that the powers to compel testimony and evidence referred to earlier apply here, too, as does the preference for these powers to be set out clearly in the founding legislation. This may be especially important for quasi-jurisdictional institutions so that there can be no misunderstanding of the nature and extent of their powers when they decide to take up an individual complaint. Moreover, it would be preferable for the institution to be able to apply these powers directly rather than through the courts so as to ensure that it can deal simply and quickly with matters it is investigating. Maintaining confidentiality Victims and witnesses should be protected if the circumstances indicate that there is danger of reprisal. While there can never be guarantees, NHRIs should develop structures and procedures that support confidentiality—beginning with the receipt of the complaint and continuing, as far as possible, throughout the investigatory process. Confidentiality should not, of course, be imposed on complainants against their wishes. While there may be circumstances where confidentiality must be maintained, usually for reasons related to the personal security of the complainant or others, procedural fairness requires that a person should be aware of and able to defend himself or herself against the allegation. Parties and witnesses must be made aware that the information they provide may be used to prepare the investigation report and that it may not be possible to protect their identity should the matter go to court, where this is a possibility. When safety is a legitimate concern, the interviewee must make an informed decision on whether to proceed. It is vital, therefore, that the investigators never promise any action or protection that they are not in a position to guarantee. Informing the respondents The principles of procedural fairness require NHRIs to inform respondents of the complaint and give them a reasonable period of time to give their version of events. The nature of the response will influence the scope of the investigation. For example, an alleged perpetrator may accept the complainant’s version of events, which might indicate that immediate conciliation is warranted. Even if he or she accepts only certain elements of the allegation, those issues will not require further investigation. The standard of proof required should be spelled out in the guidelines on the investigative process. Consideration should be given to adopting a civil “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal law standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. This may be justified in view of the evidentiary problems that can exist in many situations of suspected human rights violations and the fact that the objective of most investigatory mechanisms is remedial rather than punitive. National human rights institutions may call upon experts to support investigations through secondment. Some institutions are able to choose Government officials and members of the police or other forces who are, in the institutions’ opinion, best suited to the task at hand. Where this happens, it is essential for these experts to be able to work independently of their parent unit and under the NHRI chain of command. It is also important not to recruit an expert from the same branch or area of government as the individual or agency under investigation. 85