A/HRC/42/50 soldiers’ convictions were themselves imprisoned for 18 months, significantly longer than the time served by the actual perpetrators of the crimes. 98. The mission found that victims from a diverse range of ethnicities have little trust in the authorities’ ability and willingness to ensure justice. Independent Commission of Enquiry 99. In June 2018, shortly before the mission released its report, the Government of Myanmar established the Independent Commission of Enquiry to examine the events of 2017 in Rakhine State. The Commission was to publish an interim report in April 2019 and its final report by 30 July 2019.8 At the time of writing, neither report had been released. In July 2019, the Government extended the Commission’s mandate for an additional six months to continue its work. Under its mandate, the Commission’s recommendations can only be directed to enhancing peace and stability and ensuring law enforcement and the rule of law. The chair has emphasized that it is not an accountability mechanism for human rights violations and abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. The Commission relies on the Office of the President for financial, administrative, technical and logistical support. 100. In March 2019, the mission met with the Commission chair, Rosario Manalo, in Geneva. The chair reported that the Commission had a secretariat with clerks and one staff, and an investigation team with two local legal experts supported by two foreign experts. The limited information the chair provided about the Commission’s resources and methodology raised serious concerns for the mission; the Commission’s mandate provides that it “may undertake study/investigative visits to relevant areas to obtain direct and first-hand information”. The Commission has made no public statement of methodology, and did not provide the mission with a detailed description of its methodology. The Commission undertook one mission to Rakhine State, in August 2018, during which it met with government officials and interviewed between 8 and 10 victims. The chair confirmed that the interviews held during the field mission were undertaken in the presence of security forces. 101. At the time of writing, the Commission had not visited Cox’s Bazaar, and the Rohingya with whom the mission spoke feared reprisals for speaking to Myanmar government officials about Tatmadaw brutality in Rakhine. 102. Under international law, Myanmar has a duty to investigate, prosecute and punish gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law, in particular where they amount to crimes under international law. The establishment of a commission could have been a positive step towards fulfilling these obligations; however, the Commission’s lack of a clear mandate, its opaque methodology and its questionable operating procedures, as well as its dependence on the Government of Myanmar, undermine the possibility that its investigations would lead to the identification of perpetrators, the promotion of accountability and justice, and redress for victims. B. International accountability 103. Against such a background of domestic impunity, the mission reaffirms its conclusion that accountability can only be advanced by the international community. The mission has assessed the options available. 1. International Criminal Court 104. On 6 September 2018, following a request submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Rome Statute, Pre-Trial Chamber I decided by majority vote that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar, which is not a State party to the Statute, to Bangladesh. The Chamber urged the Office to supplement the investigation of the crime 8 16 See www.icoe-myanmar.org/key-terms and www.moi.gov.mm/ppd/sites/default/files/Vol-71%2CNo44.pdf.