A/HRC/19/61 24. For the above reason, another purpose of the present report is to generate further conversation about the standards that apply to the establishment and conduct of commissions of inquiry, and the relationship between commissions of inquiry and the fulfilment by a State of its international legal obligations with regard to torture. Such obligations include the obligation to investigate and prosecute torture and other forms of illtreatment, and to provide effective remedies to victims of past violations, including reparation for the harm suffered and to prevent its reoccurrence.4 B. Objectives 25. The principal objective generally pursued by commissions of inquiry is to discover, clarify and formally acknowledge the causes and consequences of past violations in order to establish accountability. In this capacity, commissions of inquiry are fact-finding mechanisms that aim to establish an accurate record of the past by clarifying and deepening the public understanding of certain events or a particular period of time. This objective is met by means of numerous interviews and/or providing a venue for the public testimony of a broad array of actors, including victims, witnesses and Government officials. The resulting bolstered historical record allows for a more detailed account of patterns of violence, identifies where safeguards are lacking against torture and other forms of illtreatment, opens space for public dialogue that may not have previously existed and corrects public misperceptions about certain events or a particular time period. Effective commissions of inquiry may aid in the establishment of accountability by paving the way for an effective strategy to prosecute perpetrators. 26. Commissions of inquiry may also be designed to address other objectives, including: (a) To contribute to accountability for perpetrators; (b) To respond to the needs of victims; (c) To identify institutional responsibility and propose institutional, legal and personnel reforms;5 (d) To promote reconciliation. Indeed, the process of achieving accountability can be aided by the work of a commission of inquiry where the information and names collected by the commission are shared with prosecuting authorities. While evidence collected by a commission of inquiry is often inadmissible in a court of law owing to the lower standards of evidence used by commissions to encourage broad participation, such information may be used as background information and provide further evidentiary leads. 6 4 5 6 8 In its resolution 18/7 , the Human Rights Council established the mandate of Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. The Council will appoint a mandate holder at its nineteenth session. For example, the report from the National Commission for Truth and Justice in Haiti (1995) was subsequently used to vet new applicants to the civilian police force. See for example Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Florencio Chitay Nech et al. (Case 12.599) against the Republic of Guatemala, (April 2009); Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, judgeent of 29 April 2004 (Merits), Series C No.105; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, judgement of 27 November 2003 (Merits, Reparation and Costs), Series C No. 103; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Myrna MackChang v. Guatemala, judgement of 25 November 2003 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Series C No.101.