A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 4. Predictability 50. The need for clarity as to procedures and relevant timeframes is addressed in a series of elements under policy objective 9 (9.1 and 9.2). The methods for communicating such information will depend on the mechanism but may include both offline and online resources, disseminated through the communication channels mentioned above,39 and should be in the languages of relevant rights holders. Information should be sufficiently detailed for rights holders to understand the grievance process and make an informed assessment of the mechanism’s capacity to respond to the issues at hand (9.2(a) and 9.2(b)). In doing so it is important that such information is accurate and avoids overpromising with respect to the types and likelihood of remedies that might be delivered. 51. There may be circumstances where a mechanism seeks to cooperate with another mechanism (whether State-based or non-State-based) or a State agency. It is important for rights holders to be informed of the circumstances in which this might take place, when and how they will be consulted, and their rights (if any) to object (9.4(a)). The mechanism should take account of risks of retaliation from both State and non-State actors (9.4(b)) as a result of any such cooperation (see also 12.4). 52. Publishing information about, or databases including, past cases (e.g. types of claims, along with remedial outcomes and time frames) can enhance predictability of grievance processes (9.5). However, mechanisms will be subject to legal and other constraints, including with respect to protecting people from the risk of retaliation (see also 8.9). 5. Equitability 53. Policy objective 10 highlights the importance of access to information, advice and assistance to enable rights holders to participate fairly and confidently in grievance processes. 54. In many cases, rights holders will likely need some form of advisory or financial support to help raise a grievance (10.1(a)). Cases where rights holders have experienced serious injury or trauma need particularly careful handling (10.1(b)), and it can be helpful for them to have access to specialist “navigators” with first-hand experience of the harm and/or relevant grievance process who can help them find their way through the remediation process and provide necessary support along the way. 55. The recommended action makes suggestions for the observance of due process, highlighting the importance of adequate and timely provision of information (10.2), opportunities to verify and comment on information before material decisions are made (10.3), a proper record of the process, outcomes and reasons for any decisions made, and information as to next steps, including options for reviewing or challenging processes or outcomes (10.4). 56. It is of particular importance that rights holders have access to reports that have been created for the purpose of the grievance process (e.g. investigation reports) or which may be personal to them, such as medical reports. 57. The recommended action takes account of the growing use of new technologies in connection with grievance processes, for instance with respect to helping document abuse, receiving or communicating information, and case management (10.7). Such technologies can help empower rights holders, enhance the accessibility of mechanisms, enable more efficient grievance processes, and help developers and operators of mechanisms analyse trends and patterns in complaints with a view to identifying systemic problems that require addressing in order to prevent future harm (see 13.2). However, such technologies have limitations, as they may be inappropriate in certain cases (e.g. in complex or nuanced situations where specialist, personal interaction and support is required), may exacerbate inequalities with respect to access to remedy for those with low digital literacy levels, and may present serious risks as regards privacy, data protection and digital security. Thus, 39 See para. 44 above. 13