In my time working with the IPU for maybe five years now, what I've noticed, perhaps the most powerful thing in terms of issuing the reports....
Here's a practical example. A former member from Venezuela is no longer a member of the committee because of reports that were issued by this human rights of parliamentarians committee.
The power of exposure, the power of the pulpit, the power of distribution of the findings and comments made by the committee in the media, which is then often broadcast in the affected country, is very persuasive. It's delicately exercised by these 10 human rights experts who pore over the evidence and they're very cautious.
There is an ongoing debate. I would be less than fully transparent if I didn't say there's an ongoing debate amongst some members of the IPU about how far the committee can go in interfering, in some people's minds, or examining the conduct of a government in a sovereign state, but the committee seems to have found a way to deal with that in the formatting of its reports and the robustness of the evidence it relies on.