A/HRC/4/20 page 22 13 A lengthier list of examples is provided in the communication sent to the United States on 30 November 2006. See also Daniel O’Donnell, Trends in the Application of International Humanitarian Law by United Nations Human Rights Mechanisms, 324 Int.l Rev. Red Cross 481 (1998). 14 CHR Res. 1992/S-1/1, para. 1. 15 Id. at para. 9. 16 ECOSOC Decision 1992/305. 17 CHR Res. 1994/72, para. 4. 18 Id. at para. 7. Taking note of this resolution, the ECOSOC “approved … [t]he Commission’s … request that the Special Rapporteur … continue to submit periodic reports … on the implementation of Commission resolution 1994/72”, ECOSOC Res. 1994/262. 19 CHR Res. S-3/1, para. 1. 20 Id. This resolution was explicitly endorsed by ECOSOC Decision 1994/223. 21 GA Res. 60/251 (2006). 22 CHR Res. 1982/29, para. 2; ECOSOC Res. 1982/35, para. 2. 23 See communication sent to the United States on 30 Nov. 2006. 24 E/CN.4/1983/16, paras. 29-39. 25 Id. at paras. 33-34. 26 CHR Res. 1983/36, para. 3. 27 E/CN.4/1992/30, p. 176. 28 CHR Res. 1992/72, para. 3. 29 E/CN.4/1992/30, para. 649(f) and para. 651(b). 30 The International Committee on the Red Cross (ICRC), although exercising valuable humanitarian oversight in such matters, does not act in a manner which satisfies the need for public accountability. 31 “Charges Reduced in Iraq Killing”, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 8, 2004; “U.S. Officer Calls Killing an Act of Mercy”, New York Times, 9 September, 2004. 32 Id.