A/HRC/11/2 page 5 III. ISSUES OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE A. Responding to reprisals against individuals assisting the Special Rapporteur in his work 12. In March 2009, a journalist questioned the spokesperson of the Secretary-General about the protection available to individuals who had provided information to me on one of my missions. 13. The official transcript records the following exchange: Question: [T]here are these reports following up on Philip Alston’s report about police killings in Kenya that some 30 human rights activists and lawyers have gone into hiding because they think they’re going to be killed because they cooperated with the UN on the report. Is the UN aware of it, and what’s the UN going to do for people who actually worked with the UN on this report? Spokesperson: This report was made to the Human Rights Council and it is a matter for the Human Rights Council to take decisions on. Question: But if it’s true what these people say that they’re in fear of their life because they cooperate with the UN, does the Human Rights Council have any safety or security service? What’s the procedure? Spokesperson: The Human Rights Council does not have its own security services, if that’s what you’re asking.3 14. The above exchange highlights a significant challenge facing the Council in relation to the country missions undertaken on its behalf by special procedures mandate holders. At one level, it goes without saying that the Council cannot provide security services, nor can it be responsible for actions taken by Governments which are acting, or failing to act, in accordance with the generally accepted rules governing this type of human rights fact-finding. At another level, however, the question serves to expose a major gap in the arrangements that the Council has put in place. It has established a system that depends heavily on the good faith cooperation of civil society and private actors in providing information, but then stands back and fails to act when those same individuals are victimized by Government agents precisely as a result of their cooperation. The irony is that although the Council, and the Commission that preceded it have regularly acknowledged the unacceptable nature of such reprisals, it almost never takes any action in response to such cases. The Council should move to remedy this gap in its procedures. 15. One of the fundamental assumptions upon which country visits by special procedures are undertaken is the principle that “[c]omplainants, witnesses, those conducting the investigation and their families shall be protected from violence, threats of violence or any other form of intimidation”. While this formulation is taken from principle 15 of the principles on the effective 3 Daily press briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, 30 March 2009, available at www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/db090330.doc.htm.