A/HRC/28/36 33. Delegates expressed their appreciation for the organization of the panel discussion, which represented a favourable context for sharing experiences and good practices in the area of history teaching and memorialization processes. A. General remarks 34. Most delegations stressed that it was essential for States to acknowledge and learn from past wrongs in order to prevent the recurrence of human rights violations, and to set the foundations for trust between formerly opposed groups. Some States spoke of memorialization processes as an absolute precondition for justice and as an indispensable element for achieving peace, noting that reconciliation could not occur when the memories and pains of victims were despised. 35. It was noted that remembrance was part of human nature and that memories shaped identities. As part of the array of transitional justice instruments, symbolic measures of reparation could take the form of commemorative events and monuments in symbolic places, with the objective of honouring the memory of the victims of a troubled past and demonstrating recognition on the part of the authorities. Many participants underlined that victims had to be at the centre of memorialization processes, with a focus on their plight for protection and reparation. Indeed, victims would be unable to participate in the reconstruction of the social fabric of a country unless they were granted minimal recognition, including through moral or symbolic redress. B. Multi-perspective approach to history teaching and memorialization processes 36. Many States emphasized the importance of understanding and analysing elements that contributed to terrible historical events, so as to provide useful grounds for reconciliation and work towards building a better future. Some States warned that biased historical narratives coupled with a lack of shared memories of past events could result in further atrocities. 37. It was noted that the diversity of historical narratives had often resulted in tensions within societies composed of groups that each held and perpetuated their own version of historical events. Consequently, social divides between communities hindered efforts by Governments or civil society organizations to bridge gaps. 38. Most States mentioned how crucial it was to recognize the legitimacy of diverging narratives. This was to be considered as a first step towards opening up a dialogue in which all sides could express their perspective and experience of past events and have the opportunity, conversely, to listen to alternative interpretations. In this respect, of particular note was the role of the State to make public spaces available for such discussions, on the basis of the principle of non-discrimination, mutual tolerance and respect, thus allowing views of all social categories to be voiced. Several delegations recognized the necessity of cooperation between all stakeholders, including politicians, historians and other academics, artists and communities, for the success of these public multi-perspective discussions. 39. Many States agreed that this multi-perspective approach had to be carried out through all spheres of society, especially in the sector of education, and had to be at the core of history teaching. Some delegations insisted on the role of history teaching as a vector for long-term peace and stability: by acting on the younger generations and by creating an adequate environment to foster tolerance and mutual understanding, history teaching using a multi-perspective approach could provoke changes in attitudes and behaviours that were currently too often grounded on stereotypes and prejudice towards 9