A/HRC/28/36 23. Ms. Wilson stressed that, in memorialization processes, priority should focus on creating the conditions necessary for a constant ongoing dialogue, with lesser importance accorded to the nature of the memorialization activity itself. Part of this dialogue has taken place within the family context, where the impacts of injustice have often been carried forward to the next generation of children. Ms. Wilson concluded that these questions must be considered as urgent, not only as a tool to prevent recurrence but also as a means to stop the continuation of similar injustices. It was also urgent to learn from elders while they were still available to teach some of the most valued things that had been endangered by the residential schools, especially language, cultural knowledge and spiritual ceremonies. Such things helped to heal past harms, restore indigenous pride and enrich Canadian identity. 24. Mr. de Greiff stressed that issues relating to history teaching and memorialization processes were central to his mandate. In his view, “cultural interventions” could significantly contribute to the cause of transitional justice. Such interventions included activities that take place outside of institutions formally responsible for policymaking, such as memorials, cultural expressions and opinion articles, in various media and in museums, for example. The Special Rapporteur underlined that there was a basic distinction to be made between three spheres of intervention: at the cultural level, through social institutions and by individuals. Overcoming racism, discrimination, cultures of deep fear and underlying causes of massive human rights violations required interventions in those three spheres. He added that oppressive and authoritarian regimes were very successful at controlling cultural productions and that conflicts could be stopped by “cultural entrepreneurs” who were deeply aware of the importance of cultural interventions. 25. Mr. de Greiff added that, while in many conflicts victims were considered as a threat to the national economy and the basic interests of the ruling elites, cultural interventions greatly contributed to making victims visible and remembering the debt owed to them. Cultural interventions played an important part in understanding, including from an intergenerational point of view, how violations were perpetuated in space and time. 26. Mr. de Greiff stressed that States should keep in mind that their options were not either to forget or to remember the past but rather to discuss what kind of public space should be made available for remembering the past and for allowing the expression of a plurality of views. He noted that one way to open such a space was to support civil society, financially but also by enabling the conditions for it to operate effectively. The Special Rapporteur emphasized that transitional justice instruments, including truth commissions, could be much more effective when they explicitly integrate cultural elements and citizen participation. He illustrated his argument by giving examples, such as photograph or art exhibitions set up in Peru, Timor-Leste or Sierra Leone, and the educational reforms proposed by the Equity and Reconciliation Commission of Morocco. 27. Mr. de Greiff urged States to not only refrain from interfering with the work of civil society for memorialization, but also to take positive steps, for example, by supporting more strongly cultural interventions; guaranteeing effectively the freedom and independence of actors involved in this process, including by liberalizing the establishment of civil society organizations; facilitating access to archives; and supporting an education regime that was sympathetic to history teaching on the basis of a multi-perspective approach. He added that, while States should also take the reports of truth and reconciliation commissions more fully into account, the reports themselves could perhaps be more explicit in directing States towards the right steps to be taken. Mr. de Greiff reminded civil society organizations of their role as participants in debates to promote rights for all and not just a few. 28. Mr. De Greiff pointed out the gap between theory and practice in the area of history teaching and memorialization processes. He stressed that this gap was still widely visible through the denial, on the part of various States, of violations, including massacres and 7