In Geneva on Monday, Tomás Ojea Quintana delivered to the UN Human Rights Council his final report as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. Close to the end of a six-year mandate, he reflected on changes witnessed both recently and across a total of nine official missions. He grouped his findings under nine main headings.

First, he welcomed 15 presidential amnesties since May 2011 that have released more than 1100 prisoners of conscience, bringing the current number down to double figures. Second, though, he expressed concern about conditions of detention. Third and fourth, he praised extensions of freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association, and at the same time noted that a great deal more needs to be done in every area. Fifth, he outlined human rights problems arising from development. Sixth, he surveyed partially improved conditions in ethnic border areas. Seventh, he dwelt on Rakhine State, where “the situation continues to worsen from an already dire state” because of “systematic discrimination and marginalisation of the Rohingya community” and failure to “turn the tide of impunity”. Eighth, he examined general challenges linked to the democratic transition and the rule of law. Ninth, he briefly renewed an existing plea for mechanisms of truth, justice and accountability.

To assess progress since 2008, Ojea Quintana looked back to four core human rights elements specified at the start of his mandate: legislative and constitutional review, release of political prisoners, reform of the armed forces, and reform of the judiciary. He found that only in the second domain, release of political prisoners, has real progress been made. Separately, he repeated an earlier assertion that “the pattern of widespread and systematic human rights violations in Rakhine State may constitute crimes against humanity as defined under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”. This allegation met with a withering riposte from the Myanmar government: “This is too pessimistic a view incompatible with his status. It is regrettable that he is not mindful enough to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”

What to make of all this? Clearly there is great resistance inside Myanmar to much that Ojea Quintana writes. The full government response to his final report, running to 28 paragraphs (and promising more), bristles with indignation. On the whole, though, the work of the Special Rapporteur must surely be supported, for there are no circumstances in which the UN can turn away from the business of bearing witness. At the same time, however, the local consequences of global action do need to be thought through. Notwithstanding the harassment he often faced, Ojea Quintana could have done more over the years to minimize the negative impacts of his reports. Where in particular did he fall short?

On occasion inside Myanmar, he was visibly disrespectful of majority Buddhist culture and sentiment. In the region he did little to help develop a sense of what is and is not permissible inside sovereign states. Within the UN system he missed opportunities to channel support for grassroots trust-building activities.

A reasonable verdict thus looks to be two cheers for Quintana. In very challenging circumstances he bore witness. By and large he presented a balanced assessment of the human rights situation in Myanmar. He could have done more, though, to facilitate the emergence of solutions to the many human rights problems he encountered.

In May, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur will pass to Professor Yanghee Lee from South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University. Professor Lee has been a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child since February 2003, and was its chair from 2007 to 2011.