A/HRC/8/3 page 17 that disproportionate use of lethal force”.65 The Department did not issue indictments. As I noted in the communication, this “outcome - and particularly the way in which the interplay of the commission inquiry and Police Investigations Department investigation have produced it - would appear to fall short of the international standards”.66 (j) The inquiry’s final report fails to adequately justify its conclusions 47. Some commissions appear on their face to be appropriately established, but a close review of the substance of the final report reveals a failure to conduct a meaningful inquiry.67 Its conclusions may be untenable in the face of the available evidence. The commission may simply accept the Government version of events without explanation or analysis. It may reach conclusions without any apparent investigation having taken place to support them. 48. During my visit to Nigeria, for example, I reviewed a commission report into a “sectarian crisis” in Kano state in 2004. Credible and detailed civil society reports put the number killed at between 200 and 250; the commission, however, without providing any evidence whatsoever that it had conducted independent investigations into the number killed, recommended that the police figure of 84 be taken as the “official position”.68 The commission, again without having undertaken any adequate investigation, also accepted the Government’s assessment of the overall damage caused by the crisis. In recommending the compensation that should be paid, the commission arrived at figures without any explanation or argument.69 (k) Lack of information about the conduct of or response to the commission 49. One significant problem encountered in the work of the Special Rapporteur in seeking to address widespread impunity for extrajudicial executions is a dearth of information on the conduct of established commissions of inquiry and of the Government response to the final commission report.70 Rarely is the progress of most national commissions carefully monitored by the international community. Commissions often take many months or years to produce their reports, and it can take as long again before the Government issues an official response to the inquiry’s conclusions. Long-term monitoring is thus necessary in order to determine whether a particular commission was, at the end of the day, effective. But there is no centralized monitoring of commissions of inquiry worldwide accessible to view the progress of a commission or to judge its effectiveness. 65 E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1, pp. 127-128. 66 Ibid. 67 E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.3, paras. 32 and 41; E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.2, paras. 43-44. 68 E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.4, para. 65. 69 Ibid., paras. 65-66. 70 E/CN.4/1996/4/Add.1, para. 41.