A/HRC/11/31 page 14 and corroborated by independent outsiders. A report of a human rights fact-finding mission could thus become integral to building a file of authoritative information for subsequent use. The mission could provide a bridge between the commission of human rights abuses at a specific time and place and some future time when other processes for accountability and justice become politically possible. The need to have a true process of accountability as a result of a fact-finding mission was further stressed. It was recalled that the Human Rights Council and the Security Council had appointed a number of fact-finding missions, but only on rare occasions had their findings led to criminal investigations at the national or the international level, such as in the case of Darfur. It was also pointed out that, while international fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry had been effective in addressing human rights and humanitarian law violations, national commissions of inquiry could also be effective in addressing issues related to violations of the rights of civilians in armed conflict. It was indicated that very few good practices had unfortunately been identified at the national level. 34. The fundamental role of judicial mechanisms and the contribution of courts in terms of establishing knowledge of human rights violations, in particular, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, was acknowledged. Some domestic courts in Latin America had also been instrumental in clarifying facts relating to enforced disappearances. Emphasis was put on the experience of hybrid courts, such as the courts in Sierra Leone and in Cambodia, where the combination of international and national justice could bear positive results while respecting both international legal standards and national sensitivities. 35. It was recalled that, besides treaty obligations, there was another normative framework applicable to situations of armed conflict. The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (General Assembly resolution 60/147) and the Updated Set of Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1) established important parameters that needed to be observed in the context of armed conflict. The Reparations Principles were of particular importance because they were adopted by the General Assembly by consensus. In its resolution 60/147, the Assembly further indicated that the principles did not entail new international or domestic legal obligations, but identified mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for the implementation of existing legal obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law, which are complementary though different as to their norms. According to the Reparations Principles, States had an obligation to respect, ensure respect and implement human rights and international humanitarian law. The Principles also provided for the duty to investigate violations effectively, thoroughly, promptly and impartially. It was also recalled that the Impunity Principles established three main fundamental rights that States should observe regarding human rights violations: the right to the truth; the right to justice; and the right to reparations for victims. The Human Rights Committee had further analysed the question of the right to reparation, including from the perspective of guarantees of non-repetition, satisfaction and compensation, as mechanisms to ensure protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflict. It was pointed out that the right to truth was an evolving issue in the context of the Human Rights Council, which had adopted a number of resolutions on this matter.