If I understand your question, it's whether there would be a difference in terms of the legal obligation by a commission of inquiry, whether it be at the Human Rights Council or established by the secretary-general. There would be no difference in terms of a legal obligation that would follow. A commission of inquiry is normally a fact-finding mission and usually makes preliminary determinations and possibly recommendations for follow-up. But in terms of a legal obligation, there would be no difference.
Were there to be a commission of inquiry under the Security Council, that would have a different consequence. A Security Council can make referrals to the International Criminal Court, for example. But between a commission of inquiry under the secretary-general or under the Human Rights Council, as I understand it, there would not be a difference.