A/HRC/28/36 certain groups of people. It was also noted that commemorations could serve as useful tools to unite people in the face of future challenges. 40. Furthermore, many States agreed that history teaching should not focus solely on facts but should aim, through a multi-perspective approach, at developing critical and analytical thinking and a democratic, tolerant and responsible civic attitude in relation to social diversity. For this, classrooms should be a space for open discussion and debate on different historical narratives, which should be drawn up following rigorous scientific research that strived for accuracy, objectivity, inclusiveness and impartiality. 41. It was noted that it was the role of States to support academia and civil society in their efforts to reach a collective but diverse historical narrative. 42. Several States supported the view that multi-perspective history teaching not only was a central element to democratization processes, but also contributed to the right of people to have access to their own heritage as well as to the heritage of others. C. Challenges and related recommendations 43. Many States pointed out some existing malpractices in history teaching and memorialization processes, identified as potential threats to efforts for the prevention of recurring violations of human rights. 44. Several delegates condemned the imposition of unjustified restrictions on academic freedom and the promotion of a single, State-drafted, history textbook, which were seen as worrying obstacles to peace and human rights. It was pointed out that some populations were negatively portrayed in history textbooks and often presented in relation to what they did not have as opposed to what they did have. Textbooks were often used for pupils to learn by heart, which regrettably caused the internalization of false information. Many history textbooks also continued to vehicle racial and gender stereotypes, which should be eradicated as soon as possible. In this last respect, many delegations expressed the essential role that memorialization played as a means of combating injustice and racist tragedies and of promoting reconciliation, in line with the third World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in 2001, and the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. 45. Many States expressed their concern at the use of history teaching to stir hatred, reinforce prejudices, spread propaganda or create hierarchies among victims. It was also noted that, given the humanitarian catastrophe of the First World War, States should be urged to adopt a human rights-based approach to history teaching and memorialization processes in order to facilitate mutual understanding and ensure the non-recurrence of serious human rights violations. 46. Concern was expressed by some States at historical distortions, such as denials of the Holocaust. Also of concern were certain historical labels that were used by some government officials to designate unrelated persons or groups, such as the flagrant and unwarranted use of the term “Nazi” in an attempt to disparage a person or group. Some also observed a noticeable rise in neo-Nazism, recalled that the promotion of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial should not benefit from claims for absolute protection of freedom of expression and information and asked States to intensify their efforts against such cases, including through the prosecution of persons involved in the destruction of memorials and cemeteries. 47. Some delegations mentioned that memorialization processes could result in deeper social problems if not carried out adequately. Delegations also noted with concern the glorification of atrocities and their perpetrators that was still commonly practiced in some 10