A/HRC/21/46 obligations and are meant to give expression thereto. They are not simply a matter of empathy, charity or expedience. 62. The mandate will need to pay special attention to the ways in which these four different elements go together, not just in theory but in practice. In addition to the intention to achieve the sort of synergies mentioned in chapter III of the present report and minimize potential conflicts between them, the Special Rapporteur also considers it essential to stem a tendency on the part of some States to trade off one measure against others. 63. Despite growing international experience with the four measures under the mandate, it must be acknowledged that: (a) not all measures are equally developed legally, practically or even conceptually; (b) the development, particularly in practice, of comprehensive approaches to address gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law requires more systematic work; (c) the sustainability of the impact of these measures, even when comprehensively implemented, could be enhanced by strengthening of links with other types of interventions, including development and security policies; and (d) increasing the effectiveness of the measures, particularly in post-conflict settings is a matter of urgency. These themes will be developed by the Special Rapporteur in future reports. 64. The four measures under the mandate can be conceptualized as assisting in the pursuit of two mediate goals – providing recognition to victims and fostering trust – and two final goals – contributing to reconciliation and strengthening of the rule of law. To provide recognition to victims, it is important but not sufficient to acknowledge victims’ suffering and their capacity to endure. It is fundamental to recognize that the victim is the holder of rights. This entails not only seeking avenues of redress that can assuage suffering but also restoring the victim’s rights and affirm her/his standing as someone who is entitled to make claims, on the basis of rights. 65. Measures under the mandate seek to contribute to both trust between individuals and trust of the individuals in State institutions. Trust involves an expectation of a shared normative commitment and, therefore, develops out of a mutual sense of commitment to these shared norms and values. Specifically, trusting an institution amounts to knowing that its constitutive rules, values and norms are shared by its members or participants and are regarded by them as binding. Both recognition and trust are preconditions and consequences of justice. 66. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that reconciliation is an end that is conceived as flowing from the comprehensive implementation of the four measures under the mandate. Reconciliation should not be conceived either as an alternative to justice or an aim that can be achieved independently of the implementation of the comprehensive approach. Reconciliation is, at minimum, the condition under which individuals can trust one another as equal rights holders again or anew. That means that individuals are: (a) sufficiently committed to the norms and values that motivate their ruling institutions, (b) sufficiently confident that those who operate those institutions do so on the basis of those norms and values – including the norms that turn individuals into right holders – and (c) sufficiently secure about other individuals’ commitment to abide by and uphold these basic norms and values. 67. The concept of the rule of law to which this mandate seeks to contribute is not a purely formalist notion. Rule of law has to be understood in a way that coheres with an understanding of its ultimate aim – promoting a just social order – and the more particular aims in terms of which transitional justice measures are specified, including recognition, trust, and reconciliation. The combination of measures is meant to give reasons for individuals to think of themselves as rights holders, free to organize 19