A/HRC/45/CRP.4 sufficient time, and financial, human, and technical resources, to: effectively investigate, understand, and document the antecedents, causes, patterns, scope, and consequences of gross human rights and international humanitarian law violations in South Sudan; and identify and propose feasible reforms, reparations, and other measures to address the harm suffered by victims and guarantee non-recurrence of similar violations in future. These are critical processes that should not be rushed. Rehabilitation measures to accompany truth-seeking process 98. The CTRH should incorporate measures to facilitate survivors’ access to rehabilitation, particularly in recognition of on-going individual and collective trauma within conflict-affected communities. Community-based psychosocial support, psychotherapy, emergency healthcare, and other interventions can help to mobilise broad participation and mitigate re-traumatisation of victims and survivors during the truth-seeking process. Hybrid Court for South Sudan 99. Experiences in several post-conflict contexts demonstrate that, when accompanied with the necessary political, financial, and technical support, criminal trials have the potential to: prevent or mitigate recurrent cycles of conflict; deter would-be-perpetrators; initiate social transformation founded on new norms such as respect for human rights and the rule of law, inclusivity, equality, and non-discrimination; and provide relief and a sense of justice for affected victims and communities, thereby averting cycles of revenge attacks and recurrent conflict.71 Criminal prosecutions against individuals responsible for planning, committing, and perpetuating conflict-related atrocities have the potential to begin dismantling entrenched impunity in South Sudan. 100. The Commission notes that the R-ARCSS places primary responsibility for the establishment of the Hybrid Court on the African Union Commission, including for the selection of judges, prosecutors, and other court officials,.72 The R-TGoNU, on the other hand, is obligated to support the operation of the Hybrid Court through enactment of national legislation to provide for primacy of the Hybrid Court over national courts and cooperation with national authorities.73 However, in light of the R-TGoNU’s continued delay in signing the MoU with the AU and adopting the Statute, the Commission holds the view that a more purposive reading of the R-ARCSS should be adopted to permit the AU Commission to independently complete the process of establishing the Hybrid Court. While a collaborative approach between the AU and R-TGoNU is desirable for the effective operation of the Court, a narrow reading of the R-ARCSS risks rendering it an instrument to delay the possibility of timely justice and reconciliation for South Sudanese people. At the very least, the AU Commission should intensify preparatory work, including the establishment of an investigative mechanism related to prosecution to complement the collection and preservation of evidence mandate of this Commission, pending the establishment and full operationalisation of the Hybrid Court. 101. Victims and survivors who expressed their views to the Commission are adamant that criminal accountability is imperative to halt cycles of conflict and accompanying violations in South Sudan, and to provide affected individuals and communities with a sense of closure from past violations. As one victim stated, “Something needs to be done to stop this on-going suffering inflicted on innocent civilians. In order to do it, those military commanders and civilians . . . should be held accountable for human rights violations that took place during the attacks of April and May 2018.”74 Similarly, another victim stated that, 72 R-ARCSS, Articles 5.3.1 and 5.3.3. RARCSS, Articles 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. 74 ERN 101638 – 101642. 73 21