Conducting a National Inquiry into Systemic Patterns of Human Rights Violation Victims, of course, must have priority. The families of victims are also affected by the human rights violation and they will want to speak about what they have suffered. They are entitled to do so. However, it will not be possible to hear every victim or family member who wants to give evidence. Still, their experiences are among the most important that the inquiry will hear and their stories need to be brought to public attention. The inquiry team will need to select carefully from among victims and family members to ensure that the full range of their experiences is reflected in the evidence in the public hearings and that those selected to appear in person include women and come from all social, ethnic and religious groups affected by the violations. The inquiry should ensure that those it is unable to include in a public hearing are able to provide their evidence in another way, for example, through a written or audio or video submission or in an interview with inquiry staff. Witnesses to violations will also have important evidence to present. They are independent of both victims and violators and so are able to present their evidence of what they have seen and heard. Again, it will be necessary to be selective in deciding which witnesses should be invited to give evidence so that the numbers do not exceed the inquiry’s capacity. Alleged perpetrators constitute the third category of first-hand witness. Anyone who has been personally named as a perpetrator by a victim or a witness is entitled to have an opportunity to respond to the allegation. Because a national inquiry can rarely reach detailed findings about individual violations, most national inquiries try to prevent individuals being named as alleged perpetrators in public hearings. Any who are, however, are entitled to an opportunity to respond publicly if they so desire. More generally, the inquiry will want to provide opportunities for key persons from groups alleged to be perpetrators – for example, police officers, military personnel or prison guards – to appear and give evidence and answer questions in public. The difficulty is that often these people are unwilling to appear. The inquiry will also want to hear from academic experts – those who have studied the issue or situation intensively – who can provide an analysis of the underlying factors that have produced the situation and can offer proposals for recommendations that will provide redress to victims and ensure better human rights compliance in the future. In addition, the inquiry will want to hear from government officials who have responsibility for the particular issue or situation. They need to explain existing policies and practices. They can be given the opportunity to propose new ways of addressing the issue or situation more effectively. Where necessary, they are entitled to defend their past actions if they personally, or their department or agency, have been criticised on the basis of human rights violations. There may be many other individuals and organisations with expertise or experience to bring to the inquiry – NGOs, women, indigenous people and ethnic and cultural minorities, religious groups, perhaps private sector companies and businesses, and perhaps trade unions. In planning the public hearings, the inquiry should look broadly at the particular sectors of society that have an interest in the issue and can assist the inquiry through their expertise and experience. It is also particularly important in a national inquiry to ensure that witnesses come from as many relevant geographical areas or regions as possible. This is necessary for many reasons, including that different States or districts may have different laws and regulations. The inquiry will also need to assess whether the experiences of the human rights situation vary from region to region. 50