A/HRC/36/50/Add.1 post-authoritarian contexts in which the model originally took shape), and from the consequent tendency to replicate institutional formulas. More can be done to respond creatively to these challenges, and to integrate better institutional responses with other types of initiatives, in the cultural domain, in civil society — unfailingly the fulcrum of transitional justice work — and in adjacent areas of policy intervention including security and development. B. Recommendations 93. The Special Rapporteur addresses the following recommendations to all actors engaged in transitional justice, especially implementing States and civil society: (a) Learning between countries is valuable, but there is more mimicry, replication of institutional forms and less sensitivity to function and to context than there should be. Transitional justice would be significantly more effective if all actors would (i) devote more attention than they do at present to clarifying what they expect to accomplish through the adoption of these measures, (ii) engage in functional analysis to shed light on the institutional forms most fit to satisfying those ends in their particular circumstances, that is, after they (iii) engage in serious analysis of context, including an assessment of institutional capacities, the identification of gaps in expertise and resources, and similarly thorough political analysis; (b) Attention to functional adequacy, to the load that particular institutional forms can bear and what they can realistically deliver, should manifest itself in the prudent framing of the mandates of transitional justice institutions. This is important for many reasons, a prominent one being not to awaken expectations of victims unless there are good reasons to believe that those expectations can be satisfied; (c) Sensitivity to context should lead all actors to take more seriously the differences between post-authoritarian and post-conflict transitions and to adjust redress and preventive measures according to the specific constraints and the specific needs of each type of context; (d) Increased attention to the ends sought through the adoption of transitional justice measures, to the particularities of the context in which the measures operate, and to the different institutional means through which obligations can be effectively satisfied, should lead to increased creativity and diversity in the design of redress and preventive measures — compatible with the universality of the underlying norms, which in all cases require complying with criteria of equality, impartiality, inclusivity and where applicable rule of law and due process guarantees;54 (e) For both normative and practical reasons, the sustainability of transitional justice measures depends upon placing the rights and needs of victims at the centre of design and implementation processes. There is no way of doing this without consulting victims. Inclusive consultations of an ongoing character, not mere one-off events, need to be established in order to give victims and other marginalized groups a voice in these processes; (f) Transitional justice is not simply a technocratic process of clever institutional engineering. As important as institutional responses are, other dimensions — including cultural interventions, measures to strengthen civil society and initiatives that may produce changes in individual convictions and dispositions — deserve more attention than they have received as crucial elements of transitional justice. 54 As the Special Rapporteur has insisted in previous reports, nothing undermines the effectiveness and credibility of transitional justice measures more than the impression that they are instruments of “turntaking”, tools to benefit supportive constituencies and to disfavour individuals, groups or communities that oppose those in power. 19