Did we study the constitution of other commissions?
As I mentioned, the key about a commission is that it is established by a government, and you're pretty well locked in to what the government says the commission can do. We, in our case, as I mentioned, added the human rights dimension; it wasn't in the original mandate. In that respect, I think we lived up to what was required.
The commission, however, did not have prosecutorial powers. We could not summon witnesses against their own volition, and we had no powers of prosecution—we couldn't actually prosecute individuals. Our sense was to share with government cases in which there had been violations of human rights, and then it was up to the government to take the actions of prosecution.
If I have a criticism of the commission, it is that we weren't terribly successful in publicizing our recommendations on governance. I think that's important, because other countries, such as the Nordic countries and Canada, wanted to help strengthen Honduras's governing systems. Although we had our report—and it was about the size of two Ottawa telephone books—it was in Spanish. It took Foreign Affairs in this country about six months to translate it so that we could send the report to countries that were English-speaking and perhaps weren't prepared to get exercised or interested in a Spanish publication.
I think we could have done a slightly better job of trying to make our report internationally accessible, and that might have helped more to bring in technical assistance and aid from other countries that were trying to support Honduras in its efforts to become more democratic.