A/HRC/8/3 page 7 indicating that a special commission of inquiry has been set up to investigate the matter.6 The Special Rapporteur has frequently welcomed this measure,7 and in many cases where a State has not yet signalled its intention to create a commission, the Special Rapporteur has called on the State to do so.8 Specific national commissions have also been studied in depth in a great many of the country reports of the Special Rapporteurs following in situ visits.9 All too often, however, the commissions of inquiry are found wanting, and successive Special Rapporteurs have expressed the concern that commissions are frequently designed to deflect criticism by international actors of the Government rather than to address impunity.10 Once the establishment of a commission has been announced, the State, in response to criticisms from the international community, often uses the special inquiry as evidence that it is currently taking action to address impunity. This often succeeds in defusing domestic or international criticism and preventing strong advocacy by international actors to promote accountability within the State; however, given that commissions of inquiry are often deficient and that attempts to use commissions to avoid rather than advance accountability often succeed, the international community must find more effective ways of engaging with them. 21. Thus, in my 2006 report to the Commission on Human Rights,11 I signalled my intention to report to the Human Rights Council on the principal problems that had been experienced in relation to commissions of inquiry and to make recommendations in that regard.12 To that end, 6 E.g. E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.1, paras. 301 and 331; E/CN.4/1997/60/Add.1, para. 225; E/CN.4/1995/61, paras. 135 and 164; E/CN.4/1996/4, paras. 188-91; E/CN.4/1994/7, para. 199; E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 115-18; E/CN.4/1993/46, para. 348; E/CN.4/1991/36, para. 296; E/CN.4/1991/36, para. 124; E/CN.4/1992/30, paras. 502 and 543; E/CN.4/1991/36, paras. 290-96. 7 E.g., E/CN.4/1992/30, para. 281. 8 E.g. E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, p. 291; E/CN.4/1990/22, para. 378; E/CN.4/1991/36, para. 455. 9 E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5; E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.4; E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.2; E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.2; E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.3; E/CN.4/1996/4/Add.1; E/CN.4/1995/61/Add.1; E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.2; E/CN.4/1992/30/Add.1; E/CN.4/1990/22/Add.1; E/CN.4/1987/20. 10 A/62/265, para. 11; E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.4, para. 103; E/CN.4/2003/3, para. 31; E/CN.4/1999/39, para. 67; E/CN.4/1998/68, para. 97; E/CN.4/1997/60, para. 97; A/51/457, para. 124; E/CN.4/1995/61, para. 402; E/CN.4/1994/7, para. 695. 11 12 E/CN.4/2006/53, paras. 25 and 61-62. This report focuses on national, rather than international commissions of inquiry. For reporting on international commissions of inquiry, see E/CN.4/2006/89 examining the international commissions for East Timor (1999), Togo (2000), the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2001), Côte d’Ivoire (2004), and the Darfur region of the Sudan (2004).