I think this is something that necessitates long-term independent oversight, so that it's not just a family advisory while it's in the public view because we are going through the process of the inquiry. This requires a commitment to a funded independent oversight that is going to have the kinds of human rights knowledge and grassroots knowledge to be able to ensure that the government is held to task and that the international human rights watchdogs are continuing to look at this situation. That is what is going to be really important here: that this isn't just a flash in the pan or something that's checked off on a to-do list; that we don't do the inquiry and then, as you said, it becomes one more report on a shelf that nobody ever looks at.
That's going to mean that the inquiry itself has to have some commitment—we are saying, at minimum—to a third phase. You have the pre-inquiry phase, where they're developing. You have the actual inquiry. There needs to be a third phase that ensures, for any identification of misconduct or lack of justice, or for cases that need to be reopened—because they are not going to be able to reopen them during the inquiry in the number of cases that will need to be—that there is a developed process where those cases are reopened, justice is given to the families, and there are resources provided for that, as well as long-term oversight to ensure there is implementation.
We know that's going to require commitments in budgets. This is about upstream investments. This is about making sure that we are investing now.