Philip Alston was amongst the first to herald the significance and effectiveness of international Commissions of Inquiry as a response to human rights violations.1 He nevertheless also presented to the UN Human Rights Council a critical analysis of the shortcomings of national Commissions of Inquiry.2 He served on various Commissions, including the Commission set up by the Security Council on the Central African Republic, and my chapter seeks to build on some of the ideas which he advanced in this context. I know Philip would be disappointed by a chapter which simply recounted his exploits and described the increasing resort to international Commissions of Inquiry, so I have sought to offer an ‘insider perspective’ on some of the dilemmas faced by international Commissions in the contemporary context. It was Philip who, early on in my career, impressed on me the importance of revealing one’s perspective, and of setting up counter-arguments before demolishing them. His marker of a good academic piece, he once told me, was detection of a liberal deployment of the words ‘nevertheless’ and ‘however’. I will cover six selected dilemmas as they arise, more or less chronologically, over the life of a Commission. They are related to: the legal framework, questioning witnesses and suspected perpetrators, and future access to sensitive material.