A/HRC/42/CRP.1 compliance. That still leaves open the question of who or what constitutes that “community”. It may be thought to include both states acting together, as for example some representative part of the United Nations, or individual States. 906. In what circumstances can third parties require something of a party to a conflict, on account of concerns that international law may have been violated, and what may they require? Presumably, whatever may trigger a legitimate enquiry by a third party must also prima facie require activity by the party to whom the enquiry is addressed. It would be surprising if a third party could request an investigation where the party to a conflict was not itself already required to conduct one. A situation may arise, however, where it never occurs to the party to the conflict to conduct an investigation or where they address the question but decide that an investigation is not necessary, in circumstances in which an investigation should, in fact, have been conducted. While it will be exceptional for third parties to be able to assert that a war crime has been committed simply on the basis of the result of an attack, they may be able to suggest that there is a legitimate cause of concern that a war crime may have been committed. In many cases, it might be justified to raise a concern or even to assert that “the attack against A is unlawful unless party B can show X, Y and Z”. 907. It should be recalled here that we are dealing with civil law, not criminal law and that we are dealing with the threshold for raising a concern rather than the standard of proof for determining responsibility. A sensible basis on which a State would be under a duty to raise its concerns would appear to be one of “reliable evidence” of a possible violation. In such circumstances, logically, the State should be entitled to a response. The nature of that response will depend on the question asked. Where, for example, concern is expressed at the choice of particular targets, it will not be sufficient for the party to reply in general terms that it only targets military objectives. A general response may be appropriate in relation to a general query but not in relation to a specific question. 908. Where a particular, isolated result is the basis for the expression of concern, then the possible wrongdoer needs to indicate the reason for the action or the reason for the particular form the action took. Where the matter raised concerns about a pattern of attacks which in each of several identified cases gave rise to a potentially unlawful result, the problem may relate not just to the individual attacks. Instead of a possible individual act of wrongdoing, this raises the possibility of a systematic pattern of wrongdoing or a systemic failing in the decision-making process. In such a situation, the party questioned needs to conduct an investigation, covering both the individual actions identified and the possibility that they constitute part of a pattern. The third party should be entitled to expect a fuller explanation, on account of the greater scope of the possible violation. Subject to the constraints of genuine issues of national security, the results of the investigation should be made known to the third party. 909. Another type of situation requiring a more in depth investigation could be where a prima facie wrongful result has occurred and where the alleged wrongdoer had complete and exclusive control of all the relevant events1439.The most obvious example is where a healthy person is detained and dies in custody.1440 While there is no reason in principle why this should be limited to the context of detention, the exclusivity of control required over the events suggests that it will only occasionally be applicable in the context of armed conflict. 1439 The need for exclusive control does not prevent the possibility of joint control; Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. R.12/52, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 176 (1981). 1440 For example, Ribitsch v. Austria, European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 4 December 1995; Selmouni v. France European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 28 July 1999; Salman v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 27 June 2000. 217