A/HRC/39/CRP.2 of international law as appropriate. In line with the Council’s request to examine alleged human rights violations and abuses, the Mission decided to examine allegations against both State and non-State actors. Finally, considering the objective of the mandate (“with a view to ensuring full accountability for perpetrators and justice for victims”), the Mission endeavoured to identify perpetrators, as well as to make findings about responsibility and recommendations on accountability. 7. The Mission notes with concern that allegations of human rights violations and abuses occurring in other parts of Myanmar also merit in-depth fact-finding. Time and resource constraints led the Mission to limit itself to Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States, particularly in light of the events that unfolded since August 2017 that required significant attention. The Mission is comfortable, however, that its geographic, temporal and subject matter focus allowed for solid overall findings and recommendations. B. Methodology 8. The Mission was acutely aware of the complexity and sensitivity of the situation it was mandated to examine, as well as of allegations from all sides that the spread of false information about events has been commonplace. This awareness reinforced its commitment to meticulously follow established methodologies and best practices for human rights factfinding, as developed by the United Nations. In doing so, the Mission strictly adhered to the principles of “do no harm”, independence, impartiality, objectivity, transparency and integrity. 9. In particular, the Mission followed the best practices established for commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions, outlined in the 2015 OHCHR publication, International Commissions of Inquiry and Fact-Finding Missions on International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law – Guidance and Practice.1 1. Standard of proof 10. Consistent with the practice of United Nations fact-finding bodies, the Mission employed the “reasonable grounds” standard in making factual determinations on individual cases, incidents and patterns of conduct. The standard was considered met when a sufficient and reliable body of primary information, consistent with other information, would allow an ordinarily prudent person to reasonably conclude that a case, incident or pattern of conduct occurred. This standard of proof is lower than that required in criminal proceedings. 11. Individual cases or incidents contained in the report are based on at least one credible source of first-hand information, which was independently corroborated by at least one other credible source of information. Specific major incidents, such as those set out in chapter V on Rakhine State, are based on multiple accounts from eyewitnesses and victims, allowing for in-depth fact-finding and detailed event reconstruction. Where the report describes patterns of conduct, these are based on multiple credible sources of first-hand information, which are consistent with and corroborated by the overall body of credible information collected. In the few instances where this standard was not met, but the Mission still considered it appropriate to include the information, this is stated explicitly. 12. In cases of torture or sexual and gender-based violence, where a second independent source of information was often unavailable, the Mission considered the case or incident corroborated when it obtained one first-hand account which it assessed as credible and was consistent with what was known about the incident or the established patterns of similar incidents in the area, and in line with the interviewer’s own observations (for example, scars or signs of trauma). 13. The Mission considered the following to be sources of first-hand information: • confidential interviews conducted by the Mission or its staff with victims, witnesses, victim’s close family members, perpetrators or former Myanmar officials with direct 1 Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/CoI_Guidance_and_Practice.pdf 7