A/HRC/14/24 2008), Afghanistan (May 2008) and Kenya (February 2009). These countries should be commended for their openness to international scrutiny.3 19. During country missions, my aims have been to understand and explain the dynamics of unlawful killings (both in terms of particular incidents, and patterns across the country) as well as their causes (legal, historical, institutional, a matter of political will etc.), and to propose constructive and specific reforms to reduce killings and eliminate impunity. These aims are linked – if the specifics and patterns of killings and their causes are not carefully understood, the Special Rapporteur cannot provide an accurate account of the human rights situation in a country, and cannot craft appropriately specific and tailored reforms. 20. Most country missions last 8 to 12 days. I am often asked how it is possible to write a meaningful report in such a time. The short answer is that it is not. My reports are based on months of pre-mission research and post-mission analysis. Informed reports and constructive recommendations require months of research into all available sources of published information, consultations with country experts before the mission, the preparation of detailed analyses of key issues, and a very large number of in-depth interviews with witnesses and officials. In many countries, detailed files are provided by witnesses or family members of victims on each specific incident, and NGOs often submit extensive reports. It is essential that Governments are given a full opportunity to respond to allegations and to provide all relevant information. I have found it productive in this respect to prepare detailed lists of questions for officials, which can be provided before or during the mission as appropriate. After the mission, it can take some months to carefully analyse all of the information provided. 21. Country missions are thus clearly complex and resource-intensive in ways that the system does not adequately recognize. The support provided by OHCHR to the mandate is significant, and OHCHR staff make admirable efforts. But the Office has simply not been given the resources it needs to meet the many demands of the average mandate. It is not realistic to expect one or two staff members to assist adequately with the preparation in any year of hundreds of allegation letters, two or three country missions and annual reports, together with the many other administrative and liaison responsibilities they must fulfil. It is essential that Special Rapporteurs and OHCHR are provided the necessary resources and staff for these functions to be carried out at a high level. C. Follow-up reports on country fact-finding visits 22. In 2006 I began following up on country missions, two years after they had taken place, to assess the extent to which recommendations had been implemented. Two followup reports – on Brazil (A/HRC/14/24/Add.4) and the Central African Republic (A/HRC/14/24/Add.5) – are submitted as addenda to the present report. 23. During my term, I prepared follow-up reports on 10 countries. The formal picture that emerges from these reports is not encouraging.4 While some countries had taken positive measures in response to my reports, many others had done little to implement the recommended reforms. 3 4 6 Some of these countries have also been visited multiple times by this mandate – including Afghanistan (twice), Albania (twice), Brazil (twice), Colombia (three times), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (twice), Sri Lanka (twice) and the United States (twice). E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.2, para. 7; A/HRC/8/3/Add.3; and A/HRC/11/2/Add.7 and Add.8.