I'll suggest two key considerations, but others may have more to add. The first has to do with deterrent value. If it starts to become known that those bodies exist, and that even if it is after the fact, those bodies are going to take a hard look at what's happened in a particular case and take action, that's going to deter wrongdoing. It's going to deter abuses, and it's also going to lead to the development of best practices. What goes wrong in cases isn't always about individuals wanting to abuse human rights. I think we would all hope and expect that, in a Canadian context, that's far from the usual case. It's often because there's a lack of guidance, unclear training, improper policies in place. Through ongoing review, these areas can be identified and remedied. So there's a deterrent piece to it.
The other consideration is that we have to recognize, unfortunately, that many of these cases don't play out in the course of a weekend, or even a few short days. All of the cases you're looking at played out over many long months. So if there had been a clear place to go, for family members, for instance, one, two, four, five months into some of these tragedies, there might have been an opportunity to get a review agency involved in looking into what was happening, even while things were still unfolding. It might not have avoided the initial arrest and detention, but it might have offered an opportunity to identify bad practices that were prolonging the detention, which might have brought those tragedies to an earlier end.