A/HRC/45/CRP.4 in Juba.39 Yet in almost all instances, the findings of these Commissions have not been published and the investigations have not resulted in prosecutions for crimes committed against South Sudanese people. 53. While the Government bears primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes, the lack of capacity and competence of the South Sudanese justice system to independently and impartially investigate and adjudicate serious crimes has been well documented in numerous reports.40 The reach of the formal justice system remains very limited outside the national and state capitals. Furthermore, the conflict has left profound deficits in the criminal justice chain across police, judicial, and prison services. These include, among other things, the lack of fair trial and due process rights, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and lack of access to legal counsel and legal aid, deplorable detention conditions, and the application of the death penalty.41 The consequence of these deficits is that traditional customary courts have been left to address cases of serious crimes even though they are not authorised to adjudicate such matters, and do not meet international fair trial and due process standards. 54. Questions have also been raised about the competence and independence of the judiciary. The Commission noted reports that the regular courts have failed to provide justice to victims of the conflict. Ordinary courts – the civilian justice system – are crippled by a severe lack of independence. Prosecutors follow the directives of the executive, and, in the absence of such directives, do not investigate serious crimes. Judges experience political interference and risk being dismissed when they act, or are perceived to act, against the Executive’s interests.42 Furthermore, in most instances, prosecutors do not initiate investigations and prosecutions when there is no formal complaint lodged by a complainant. This seriously limits access to justice for victims of violence who often are unable to file a complaint due to fear of reprisals, or simply because there is no police station in their proximity. 55. In some cases, people found to have committed grave violations have been reappointed to higher political offices. A notable example was the political reappointment of an individual found in a UN report to bear the greatest responsibility for grave violations, possibly amounting to war crimes, in southern Unity between April and May 2018. 43 In November 2019, an UNMISS team of human rights and correction officers on a routine visit to the Bentiu Central Prison discovered that three convicts sentenced to various prison terms on charges of murder and homicide had been released, one of them on the instruction of the Governor of then “Northern Liech State.”44 56. There is also the question of whether in the current political and security environment sufficient arrangements can be made for the protection of victims and witnesses who choose to appear before the regular courts. In order for transitional justice mechanisms to have the widest reach and engender citizens’ confidence, an environment of trust and security needs to be established, and effective protection provided, to enable victims and witnesses to participate in trials without risk to themselves. Creating and sustaining such a climate is essential if the full goals of accountability and reconciliation are to be realised. If a justice system is unable to secure convictions because of failures in the production of witness evidence, its capacity to deal effectively with past abuses as well as the confidence of its people in the justice system will be severely compromised. Thus, the development and implementation of effective victim-witness protection measures should remain a major priority throughout and beyond the transitional justice processes. 39 See Amnesty International, South Sudan: Crippled justice system and blanket amnesties fuelling impunity for war crimes, 7 October 2019. 40 See, e.g., Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in South Sudan, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/49; Ending the era of injustice – Human Rights Watch – 10 December 2014; “Do you think we will prosecute ourselves?” – No prospects for accountability in South Sudan – Amnesty International – October 2019. 41 Ending era of injustice – Human Rights Watch – 10 December 2014. 42 Amnesty Report May October/2019 – “Do you think we will prosecute ourselves” – No Prospects for Accountability in South Sudan. 43 Report of the Secretary General on the Situation in South Sudan – S/2019/936, at p. 10. 44 OHCHR Weekly – 20 December 2019/ UNMISS Daily Sitrep – 20 December 2019. 12