Conducting a National Inquiry into Systemic Patterns of Human Rights Violation 3.2. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING THE ISSUE In considering whether to undertake a national inquiry, an NHRI will usually have many possible issues that could be investigated. It will also find that it encounters pressure, certainly internally and possibly externally, to adopt one issue or another, as different individuals and groups express their priorities and preferences. It will be important to have clear, explicit criteria by which the various possible issues will be evaluated for their suitability and by which the final selection will be made. Clear, explicit criteria ensure that all the possible issues are considered in an orderly manner, that all relevant factors have been taken into account, that there is a good framework by which the final decision is taken and that the final choice can be justified transparently, if necessary. The NHRI should begin the selection process by adopting the criteria by which the decision will be made. There is no definitive list of criteria. These are criteria that could be included. 3.2.1. How objectively significant the issue is in the country All human rights are important and every violation is significant. However, the extent of the significance of a violation will vary from country to country. It will be affected by factors such as: • the number of persons affected by violations, directly and indirectly • the spread of violations through the country • the length of time over which violations have been occurring • the changes in the patterns of violation over time • the degree of severity of the consequences of the violations, including the impact on those most vulnerable to human rights violations. These factors interrelate in different ways. Sometimes the strength of one factor may outweigh the weakness of another. For example, a situation of human rights violation may be significant because of the very large number of persons affected, even though the impact on each person is not extreme. A failure to provide basic primary education to the majority of children will be a very significant human rights issue, even if the country is poor and illiteracy is high and most children live in subsistence families. On the other hand, a situation may be significant because of the severity of the impact, even though the numbers are relatively small. Extrajudicial killing is perhaps the most serious form of human rights violation. A pattern of killings on a persistent basis across a country may be considered highly significant even if a relatively small number of people, say 20 or 30, are killed each year. The same could be said about other particularly egregious practices, such as torture. The various factors must be considered separately and together to determine the significance of the pattern of violations on a nationwide basis. 3.2.2. How strong the public perception is of the significance of the issue Determining the significance of the issue is subjective and requires balancing. If the public is already convinced that the issue is of enormous significance, then a national inquiry may not be necessary. All that may be required is a project to identify what needs to be done to provide redress, including prevention of future violations. On the other hand, if there is broad agreement that the issue is of no significance whatsoever, the task of public awareness raising may well be beyond the capacity of any national inquiry. Some other approach may be needed first, for example, merely to convince the community that there is an issue. A national inquiry is best conducted when there is some public awareness of the issue, some appreciation that it is serious and some support for addressing it but a broad lack of knowledge and understanding of the nature of the issue, the extent of the violations, the seriousness of the harm suffered and the kinds of things that must be done to provide redress and ensure prevention. 14