I would simply say, in answer to Mr. Lee's question, that there is also the fact that many offences are not discussed in the report, for a number of reasons stated in the law itself. Either police officers are still conducting the investigation and want to avoid the disclosure of evidence, or they are trying to protect a double agent or informant.
That is all well and good, but who is going to be checking to see whether the investigation is actually still ongoing? Who will be checking to see whether there is a real risk that evidence will be lost? No independent person and no one who is not part of a police organization actually monitors any of these criteria. Police officers are the ones who decide that the investigation is ongoing and that in any case, they still need more information.
This kind of process is extremely risky. One should always be aware of simple data, even if they're incomplete. The way these acts were committed has to be analyzed. People have to be able to question police officers and their superiors and get answers to their questions in order to ascertain what really happened. In that sense, senior police officials should be subject to a judicial test and a committee test.