A/HRC/24/42 since the 1980s.21 Those that have had such impact derive this potential from, among other factors: • The moral standing of their members. • Their establishment in the wake of social turmoil or upheaval, when the basic “social contract” is being revised. • The fact that the topics that they address closely relate to fundamental rights. • A sound and consistent methodology. • Openness to civil society. • A “victim-centred”, inclusive approach. 24. Successful truth commissions have made, inter alia, the following contributions: • Giving a “voice” to and empowering victims: commissions can create platforms for victims to tell their stories – for example, by holding public hearings – thereby giving them a place in the public sphere for the very first time. This is part of the process of affirming the status of victims, often members of socially marginalized groups, as equal rights holders. • Fostering general social integration: official acknowledgment of atrocities contributes to ending cycles of resentment and mistrust. • Helping set reform priorities: in the aftermath of massive atrocities, commissions have been sources of information about systemic failure, which has helped in setting up reform agendas. • Providing important information for the other transitional justice measures: commission reports and other information gathered by commissions have been useful for prosecutorial efforts and fundamental to reparation programmes and institutional reforms. Ultimately, commissions have provided recognition to victims as rights holders, fostered civic trust, and contributed to strengthening the rule of law. 22 25. It is crucial to keep in mind however that what truth commission reports, on their own, are primarily capable of delivering is not the same as actual transformation; hence the importance of reaffirming the need to strengthen the links among truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence,23 and more broadly, between those measures and other coexisting policy interventions.24 26. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that despite its importance, truth cannot be a substitute for justice, reparation or guarantees of non-recurrence, singly or collectively, and recalls that there are abiding national and international obligations concerning each measure, compelling practical moral and political reasons for implementing them, as well 21 22 23 24 Mandates and final reports of commissions are available at: http://www.usip.org/publications/truthcommission-digital-collection; see also Priscilla Hayner, Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions, 2nd ed. (London, Routledge, 2011). A/HRC/21/46, paras. 28-46; A/67/368, paras. 23-57. A/HRC/21/46, paras. 22-27. Ibid., paras. 47-53; see forthcoming report of the Special Rapporteur to the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session. 7