A/HRC/21/46 25. This pattern of bidirectional relations between reparations and the other transitional justice measures can be replicated across the board. Criminal prosecutions, particularly considering their scarcity, can nevertheless be interpreted by victims as a justice measure if they are accompanied by other truth-seeking initiatives. Truth-seeking initiatives, for their part, need to be saved from being interpreted as a form of whitewash in which the truth emerges but no consequences follow. Similarly, victims will be given reasons to see criminal trials as justice being done if trials constitute one of several accountability measures that the new authorities are implementing, including the vetting of those responsible for human rights violations. Conversely, vetting of public officials must be accompanied by the creation of robust prosecutorial mechanisms if vetting is to be reasonably seen as more than an administrative, bureaucratic initiative. The web of interrelationships between the four measures under the mandate is robust indeed. 26. The point of highlighting these interrelationships is not only for conceptual clarity. For measures that are intended to respond to the legacies of irreparable violations to “succeed”, at the least, reasons must be given to understand these measures not merely in terms of expediency, but as efforts to achieve justice, notwithstanding their limitations. This is a sort of threshold condition beyond which lie more practical questions of satisfaction. Regarding the reaction of victims, in particular, to transitional justice programmes, there are two distinct concerns: one is that they may consider the programmes insufficient on many dimensions (e.g., not enough prosecutions, personnel vetted out of certain institutions or reparation benefits). A different concern is that they may consider the programmes not just insufficient but unfair or unjust, in the fundamental sense of not counting as justice initiatives to begin with. 27. The various measures should be “externally coherent”, meaning that they should be conceived of and implemented not as discrete and independent initiatives but rather as parts of an integrated policy. 11 Clarifying these interrelationships also helps us see why a bargain that has been tempting in many experiences is likely to be self-defeating. This is the second practical implication of the arguments. Measures should not be traded off against one another. Authorities must resist the tendency to expect victims to ignore lack of action in one of these areas because action is being taken in others. In addition to conflicting with international obligations that the State may have with respect to each of the measures under this mandate, such policy is likely to undermine the possibility that whatever measures the Government does implement will be interpreted as justice measures. E. Goals of truth-seeking, justice and reparations initiatives and guarantees of non-recurrence 28. As suggested in chapter III, section C, the four elements under the mandate serve to assist in the pursuit of two mediate goals, i.e. providing recognition to victims and fostering trust, and two final goals, i.e. contributing to reconciliation and to strengthening the rule of law. 11 See Pablo de Greiff, “Justice and Reparations”, in The Handbook of Reparations, Pablo de Greiff, ed. (Oxford University Press, 2006), for an elaboration of the notions of internal and external coherence in transitional justice programming. 9