A/HRC/15/33 (vii) Relocation 55. Relocation should be considered as a last resort measure in a witness protection programme. In such a case, international cooperation and formal agreements between the requesting State or organization and the proposed accepting State must be concluded.52 (viii) Procedure and criteria for admission/exit 56. The law should specify very clearly the procedure and criteria for admitting — or refusing admission to — a person in the programme. Regarding admission criteria, those indicated in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Draft Model Law on Witness Protection may be considered.53 Usual criteria include seriousness of the crime, public interest in the prosecution of the facts limited to the legal tradition involved, importance of the witness’ testimony, ability of the person to adapt to the programme and its measures, among others. In human rights cases, the profile and history of the alleged perpetrators must also be considered. (ix) Agreement between programme and witness 57. The law should provide for the signing of an agreement between the programme and the witness. Such agreement should contain all the rights and obligations of the witness, and the conditions for exiting the programme. The conclusion of a clear agreement would contribute to creating a climate of trust between the parties. (x) Appeal process 58. The law should provide for the possibility of appeal with regard to the administrative decisions of the programme. While the need for confidentiality, which may be invoked to justify the absence of an appeal process, is understandable, the decisions of the witness protection body have a significant impact on the lives of witnesses, and they should be allowed to have their case heard by a different authority. A fair appeal process would contribute to dispelling the perception of arbitrariness with regard to the decisions of the witness protection body. Various positive examples support this proposal. In South Africa, for example, any person who feels aggrieved by any decision of the Witness Protection authority may apply to the Minister of Justice to review the decision or steps concerned.54 In Kenya, the Witness Protection Law provides for the establishment of a Witness Protection Appeals Tribunal.55 (xi) Threat assessment and investigation 59. The law should clearly specify the body responsible for the threat assessment process. A multi-disciplinary team, with strong investigative capacity, should be established within the agency to deal specifically with threat assessment and investigation. (xii) Reporting obligations 60. Best practices indicate that an annual report of the witness protection programme should be submitted to a higher authority, usually the Parliament, in a manner that does not prejudice the effectiveness and security of the witness protection agency and its activities. 56 52 53 54 55 56 16 For more on “relocation” see A/HRC/12/10, paragraphs 55–59. UNODC, Draft Model Law on Witness Protection, 2008. South Africa, Witness Protection Act 112 (1998), article 14. Kenya, Witness Protection (Amendment) Act (2010), article 3U. See Australia, Witness Protection Act (1994), No. 124, article 30. GE.10-15173