A/HRC/14/24 the full extent of the phenomenon is recognized; combat impunity; and understand better the dynamics which are at play and thus help craft strategies for the future. B. Crime scenes and forensic evidence 64. The capacity to collect and analyse forensic evidence is crucial in combating impunity for unlawful killings. Yet it is too often severely lacking, or even entirely absent. Where there is no forensics capability, successful prosecutions can be extremely difficult and reliance on confessions, no matter how obtained, becomes the preferred option. This is especially so where witnesses are afraid to testify, as is often the case where police or armed groups were responsible for the killing. In countries with a basic forensics capacity, resources, training or evidence-gathering standards are often very limited. In these circumstances, even basic evidence (such as X-rays or gun powder analysis) may not be examined or analysed correctly (A/HRC/11/2/Add.2, paras. 54-56). In other countries, the problem may be one of institutional independence – if the forensics office is not independent from police who may have been involved in an unlawful shooting, it can be all too easy for police to hide or manipulate evidence. 65. The following issues would benefit from further research: (a) What is the minimum forensics capacity that a State should have in order to meet its international legal obligations to investigate and prosecute unlawful killings? How can the international community best support the development of forensic labs and expertise in developing States? (b) What are the advantages of different institutional models employed in different countries? (c) What are best practices with respect to forensics? (d) How should human rights standards influence the approach to forensics? (e) Where in the forensics process do obstacles to effectiveness and independence most often occur? For example, is evidence generally lost or manipulated at the crime scene itself, when the body is examined, or when evidence is provided to prosecutors? What steps can be taken at each stage to mitigate obstacles? C. Non-State armed actors and their use of the “death penalty” 66. In a number of countries visited, including Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia and Kenya, non-State armed actors have set up “tribunals” to hear cases of alleged civilian wrong-doing. Some of these trials have resulted in death sentences. In some cases, the process represents little more than the thinly veiled murder of an opponent. In others, the group may, in the absence of any State presence, be enforcing a rudimentary criminal code. 67. This “black market criminal justice” phenomenon receives almost no attention, although its significance would clearly warrant it. Comparative research should be undertaken on whether such processes observe basic fair trial standards, their composition, the types of crimes tried, when and how often the death penalty is prescribed, and the responses (if any) of States and the international community to such incidents. 16