A/HRC/8/3 page 13 36. Second, where formal independence has been established, actual independence may still be lacking. It is essential to look beyond the formal independence of the commission from the Government, and to assess whether the commission is capable in practice of carrying out its work independently. This may require the work of the commission to be monitored for the entire period of its operation. As Special Rapporteur Amos Wako noted in 1987, “in a number of countries, the investigating body, which was given an independent or quasi-independent status … did not, in reality, secure its independence”.38 37. An extreme example of Government interference is that of a commission established by Ethiopia in 2006 to investigate excessive force by Government forces in 2005 during anti-government demonstrations. It reportedly found initially that excessive force had in fact been used. However, government officials reportedly requested commission members to change their votes. The final report found that excessive force had not been used.39 Another is provided in the report of Special Rapporteur Wako’s mission to Zaire in May 1991. Following allegations of a massacre between 8 and 12 May 1991, the Shaba Regional Assembly established a commission. It operated for one month, but “as its report was about to be presented, it was seized, reportedly on orders of the central authorities, and quashed”.40 38. Third, a commission’s members must also be judged to be individually independent and not be seen to have a vested interest in the outcome.41 Where members are not in fact or are not perceived to be independent, the commission lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the public and its findings are unlikely to be accepted.42 In addition, witnesses may be too afraid to come forward to the Commission for fear of bias by commission members.43 (f) Inadequate provision of witness protection 39. Inadequate protection provided to commission members or to witnesses appearing before the commission has severely hampered the work of some commissions.44 The Sri Lankan national commission, ongoing at the time of the present report, has been strongly criticized by the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons for failing to have an effective 38 E/CN.4/1987/20, para. 178. 39 Amnesty International Report 2007, at http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Africa/ Ethiopia. 40 E/CN.4/1992/30/Add.1, para. 222. 41 E/CN.4/1990/22, para. 11. 42 E/CN.4/1995/61/Add.1, para. 54. 43 Ibid. 44 E/CN.4/2001/9/Add.1, para. 263; E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.2, para. 109; E/CN.4/1993/46, para. 527; E/CN.4/1990/22/Add.1, para. 37.