A/HRC/11/2 page 6 prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions (Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65, annex), the same approach was repeatedly endorsed by the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 2005/9, the Commission urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who availed or had availed themselves of procedures established under United Nations auspices for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, or who had provided testimony or information to them. The principle is also reflected in the terms of reference for fact-finding missions by special rapporteurs/representatives of the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1998/45, appendix V), which provide that “no persons, official or private individuals who have been in contact with the special rapporteur/representative in relation to the mandate will for this reason suffer threats, harassment or punishment or be subjected to judicial proceedings”. 16. In spite of these principles, intimidation of witnesses remains one of the most effective ways for perpetrators of extrajudicial executions and those who tolerate such practices to avoid being held accountable. If witnesses can be easily intimidated, if they and their families remain vulnerable, or if they sense that the protections offered to them cannot be relied upon, they are unlikely to testify. In reporting to the General Assembly (A/63/313, para. 12), I noted that “[t]he successful prosecution of those responsible for extrajudicial executions is difficult, if not impossible, in the absence of effective witness-protection programmes. […] Ending impunity for killings thus requires institutionalizing measures to reduce the risks faced by witnesses who testify.” I drew attention to examples of global best practice and identified some of the key issues that needed to be addressed in the design of effective witness-protection programmes. In response, the Assembly urged States to intensify efforts to establish and implement such programmes and encouraged OHCHR to develop practical tools designed to encourage and facilitate greater attention to the protection of witnesses.4 17. Just as successful prosecution of organized crime and serious offences committed by organs of State or armed groups at the national level is difficult or impossible in the absence of effective witness-protection programmes, effective fact-finding and reporting on extrajudicial executions by my mandate is difficult, if not impossible, if persons cooperating with the mandate can be effectively intimidated by those interested in preventing them from doing so. 18. In the domestic context, the first and most important step for investigators is to take measures to avoid placing witnesses at risk. The same applies to witnesses5 assisting country missions by special procedures. In preparing country visits, a considerable effort is made to assess the potential threat to possible witnesses. This involves the Special Rapporteur, OHCHR officials and other staff assisting my mandate, in consultation with the OHCHR Field Security Unit, the United Nations presence in the country, any relevant national human rights institution, and civil society organizations who are in contact with potential witnesses. Depending on the level of threat, precautionary measures regarding the locations and circumstances in which I 4 5 General Assembly resolution 63/182, para. 10. In this context, the term “witness” is used to cover all those who provide information to the Special Rapporteur, whether they be victims, eyewitnesses, victims’ family members, officials of human rights organizations or other.