A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 victims and their families in the investigation is also the best means to guarantee transparency and accountability of the investigative process. 61. Victims, civil society and other non-governmental organizations have often played a key role in obtaining evidence and achieving significant progress through litigation in criminal proceedings related to allegations of enforced disappearances, especially in contexts where governmental action is limited and widespread impunity exists. Consequently, the Working Group considers as a good practice the recognition of the procedural status of victims’ groups and other specialized organizations. This can enable these actors to more effectively participate in the investigative process, including through demanding access to relevant information, offering experts to monitor and review said information and making appeals against decisions. Furthermore, the collective representation of victims through family or civil society organizations has in many instances served as a means of protecting victims, by reducing their exposure to risks, both physical and psychological.67 62. The effective participation of relatives in the investigative process should be facilitated by States through the provision of adequate financial support to aid such involvement, as well as through the adoption of measures requiring that informationsharing meetings be held regularly with the teams carrying out the investigation. 63. However, in many contexts, relatives are threatened, intimidated and subjected to reprisals, rather than invited to participate in investigations. In many such cases, acts of reprisals are not duly investigated as required by the Declaration, and consequently go unpunished. This promotes an unsafe environment for the conduct of effective investigations. Similarly, relevant authorities sometimes exercise pressure over civil society organizations and relatives of disappeared persons by restraining their legal capacity or ability to seek financial support for their advocacy. In some cases, these activities have even been criminalized with ambiguous and unfounded allegations of subversion and terrorism.68 64. In situations where relatives are afraid to file complaints, or individuals with important information refuse to testify, which can contribute to impunity, it is essential to provide adequate protection programmes and incentives for witness testimony, 69 in compliance with article 13 (3) of the Declaration.70 65. It is of paramount importance to establish adequately funded institutions to protect and assist the victims, their families, witnesses and other stakeholders taking part in the investigation, including defendants that could present evidence. Furthermore, protection programmes should be established within functional independent institutions.71 It should be stressed that in many instances those who perpetrated enforced disappearances continue to operate underground, even when transitional justice processes are taking place, and often retain the ability to cause damage to anyone who attempts to hold them to account.72 66. Comprehensive witness protection measures should also be guaranteed. Witnesses should be clearly informed that they have the opportunity to benefit from identity protection, and they should also be informed if and when their testimony is to be disclosed to the defence or made public. Witness relocation schemes should also be considered in situations where serious danger exists.73 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Ibid., art. 24 (7); E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, principle 19. See, for example, Argentina, Code of Criminal Procedure of 10 December 2014, article 82 bis; and communication OL MEX 16/2018, 12 November 2018 (in Spanish). A/HRC/30/38/Add.5, para. 34. A/HRC/39/46/Add.1, para. 60; and A/HRC/30/38/Add.1, paras. 10 and 75. International Convention, arts. 12 (1) and (4); CED/C/7, annex, principle 14; E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, principle 10. A/HRC/16/48, para. 39 (general comment on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearance, para. 10); and A/HRC/10/9/Add.1, paras. 80 and 94 (in Spanish). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment, 11 May 2007, para. 165; regarding the enforced disappearance of the witness and victim Julio López in Argentina, see A/HRC/10/9/Add.1, para. 69 (in Spanish). A/HRC/10/9/Add.1, para. 78 (in Spanish). 13