A/HRC/8/3 page 11 commission.23 He reported that the commission was urgently in need of (a) basic human rights materials; (b) logistical support (vehicles and transport); and (c) stationery and office machinery.24 He noted that strengthening United Nations support to the commission could “minimize its logistical problems and enhance its efficiency”.25 (d) Lack of expertise 32. A commission needs the appropriate expertise to carry out the mandated investigations. For instance, in his mission report on Indonesia and East Timor, Special Rapporteur Bacre Waly Ndiaye observed that “[n]one of the members of the [commission] had the necessary technical expertise to correct the shortcomings found in the investigations carried out by the police”.26 Similarly, in his report on Uganda, Rapporteur Wako noted that the commission “needed expert advice on several aspects of its work, particularly in regard to the definition of offences against human rights”.27 (e) Lack of independence 33. Where a commission is not independent from the parties to a conflict or from any institution or person with an interest in the outcome of the inquiry, its inquiry is unlikely to be capable of providing an unbiased assessment of the incident. Just as importantly, where the commission is not perceived to be independent, its work will lack credibility and its conclusions are unlikely to be trusted. Independence has often been a central concern of assessments of commissions made by special rapporteurs. It has three important aspects. 34. First, independence must be structurally guaranteed so that the commission is set up as a separate institution from the Government. This formal independence can often be assessed by examining the terms of the mandate before the commission begins its work, or through an examination of the early investigatory practices of the commission. For instance, a major Sri Lankan commission, established in November 2006, the progress of which I have followed closely,28 has been criticized for its failure to secure formal independence. The commission was appointed by the President of Sri Lanka to, inter alia, investigate incidents of human rights abuses committed since August 2005, to report on the prior investigations into the abuses and to 23 E/CN.4/1987/20, paras. 62-65, and 226-234. 24 E/CN.4/1987/20, para. 8. He stated that “[N]o progress whatsoever could be achieved unless certain clearly essential requirements were met. For example, the investigative functions of the Commission of Inquiry were paralysed without transport and office supplies, including photographic equipment.” (para. 13). 25 Ibid., para. 16. 26 E/CN.4/1995/61/Add.1, para. 54. 27 E/CN.4/1987/20, para. 12. 28 E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5.