A/HRC/8/3 page 19 justice institutions (for example, where it is tasked with investigating and identifying perpetrators, duties normally performed by police and public prosecutors), a sound rationale needs to be provided by the Government to justify the creation of the commission. Without such justification, the commission is likely to be a tool to delay prosecutions or deflect the international community’s attention from advocating for prosecutions. 56. If there is no sound rationale for the commission or if the commission’s mandate is inadequate to achieve its purpose, international actors should continue to focus on the need for prosecutions to progress through the regular criminal justice system and for reforms to that system to be made where necessary. Experience shows that, where the regular criminal justice institutions are biased, or lack expertise or competence, or are the subject of Government interference, it is unlikely that a commission of inquiry will be able to achieve the independence needed to address impunity effectively. Furthermore, even if the commission defies the odds and does its work effectively, there is no reason to expect the criminal justice system to do its part by way of follow-up. It might thus be better for the international community to insist from the outset that the system itself be reformed. 57. Where the international community determines that a commission of inquiry is an appropriate response, it should then track its progress closely. Failures to meet international standards in the functioning of the commission should be noted and appropriate steps taken in response. Inordinate delays and failures to publish reports should be matters of comment. Once a commission has reported, the Government should be pressed to respond formally and address the recommendations. Finally, the Government’s actual follow-up to those recommendations should be carefully monitored. 58. In sum, the announcement or establishment of a commission should not take the pressure off a Government to address impunity, and it should not silence international actors. Instead, the international community should monitor commissions actively, push for their compliance with international standards, offer assistance where appropriate and insist that a commission does not distract from the need to maintain strong criminal justice institutions. Governments and international actors should never lose sight of the substance of what a commission of inquiry is supposed to achieve: accountability for serious human rights abuses and underlying reform to prevent the recurrence of violations. B. Right to seek pardon or commutation of a death sentence 59. Under international law, any person sentenced to death has the right to seek a pardon or to seek the commutation of a death sentence to a less draconian one. This right is reflected in international and regional instruments as well as in the domestic practice of almost every country that applies capital punishment. Indeed its recognition is so widespread that it would be difficult to deny its status as a norm of customary international law.72 As with many human rights norms, 72 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, Judgment of 20 June 2005 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/ casos/articulos/seriec_126_ing.doc, para. 109 concluded that “the right to grace forms part of the international corpus juris”.