A/HRC/45/CRP.4 various groups including women, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), faith-based groups, academics, political parties, and the business community. A questionnaire was used to elicit specific details from respondents including on the mandate of the CTRH and selection of Commissioners. violations, while others want compensation and reparations for loss of property and physical injuries. Regarding the CTHR’s operations, there were both advocates for open as well as incamera proceedings. On the composition of the CTRH, participants noted that the Commissioners should not include individuals who have served in the previous nor the current Government. Others proposed that credible individuals to lead the CTRH process could include religious leaders and South Sudanese who have worked with the United Nations and other bodies perceived to be neutral or competent on truth seeking and reconciliation processes. 46. The Technical Committee presented the outcome of the national consultations to the Council of Ministers, which approved a budget of 25 million SSP for the truth-seeking process. The next step is to present a bill for the establishment of the CTRH to the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA). However, the process has stalled as the required funds are yet to be released. 47. Mr. Kamillo additionally informed participants that sensitisation and consultations conducted by the Technical Committee are, thus far, the most concrete step taken by the Interim Transitional Government of National Unity (I-TGoNU) to advance aspects of Chapter V of the R-ARCSS, and particularly toward establishment of the CTRH. 48. However, during deliberations, civil society participants felt that the consultations fell short of the process envisaged in the R-ARCSS and expressed a number of concerns that are likely to have considerable implications on the design of the CTRH legislation and legitimacy of any resulting truth-seeking process. The five main concerns were that: • The report of the outcome of the national consultations conducted by the Technical Committee should be made public as a matter of priority. The failure to make the findings public raises concerns about transparency in the development of the CTRH legislation and the extent to which it will accurately incorporate the views of affected communities as envisaged in the R-ARCSS. For instance, participants noted that from other assessments, citizens feel strongly that the CTRH’s mandate should incorporate land issues, which, if not addressed, could be a trigger for future violence. • The consultations conducted thus far have been partial, leaving out a significant proportion of the affected population. When consultation took place, there was on-going conflict and serious violations in certain parts of the country including Western Upper Nile, Southern Unity, and Equatoria (Yei). Consequently, many of these areas were inaccessible, civilians had fled to neighbouring countries, and there was a high level of mistrust of the Government among the victims who were left behind. The Technical Committee ended up collecting views only in Government-controlled areas and protection of civilian sites (PoCs). • Out of the three Chapter V mechanisms, the CTRH has the greatest potential to draw the broad participation of South Sudanese people. It is, therefore, critical for the CTRH to ensure widespread reach to victims and affected communities. Thus, further mapping is required to ensure that the experiences of victims/survivors left out of the 2018 national consultations, including in hitherto opposition-controlled areas, are obtained and considered in designing the CTRH legislation. It will also be important to identify and collaborate with local actors 37