A/HRC/34/62 risks, including the use of different electronic media that preserve anonymity, should be considered, as long as they are compatible with due process and the demands of fairness. Protection systems commensurate with the levels of risk should be established before victims are asked to participate. At the least, initiatives akin to witness protection measures should be established.54 2. Need for psychosocial support 67. After it became apparent, during the operation of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that, contrary to the belief held by many, truth (in the sense of providing testimony to a commission) does not necessarily heal, efforts have been made to offer at least modest forms of support to participating victims. This topic, however, currently receives more verbal and written expressions of support than systematic study or implementation. 68. The willingness and capacity of individual victims to even consider participating, as well as the nature of that participation, could be significantly enhanced by the provision of effective and much more sustained and long-term psychosocial support. Such support would be in addition to immediate support to victims participating in transitional justice mechanisms and alongside other, more specific, forms of support such as physically accompanying victims to criminal trials and prior briefings on what to expect when providing testimony in private or public hearings. 69. There are types of trauma — an expected and intended consequence of policies of terror — that have a deep effect on the agency of people to come forward. Just as it is irresponsible to ignore potential security risks that participating victims may incur, it is cruelly naive to think that the experience of victimization has no impact on people’s readiness to put themselves at the forefront of claims-raising exercises without a great deal of support. B. A substantive or thematic condition: capacity 70. The ability to embark on participatory processes depends in part on a shared understanding by all relevant stakeholders of the underlying principles and procedures. In the case of transitional justice, there are many contexts in which victims — in fact precisely those who, because of numerous circumstances, have the weakest understanding of their rights — are called upon to participate in processes meant to restore those rights. This has been referred to as the paradox of participation. 55 Consequently, from the very outset, special attention needs to be paid to sharing knowledge with victims and their representatives, including about their rights. 71. Most efforts to introduce transitional justice measures at the local or national level are initially marked by steady technical and operational capacity development of the stakeholders involved, including victims, civil society and government actors. Knowledgesharing, however, often does not take place on a level playing field. Social, cultural, material, professional and linguistic differences and geographic distance may exist between victims, on the one hand, and human rights and other professionals involved in justice 54 55 See, e.g., Chris Mahony, “Witness sensitive practices in international fact-finding outside criminal justice: lessons for Nepal”, in Quality Control in Fact-Finding, Morten Bergsmo, ed. (Florence, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2013), pp. 225-274. See, e.g., Frances Cleaver, “Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development”, Journal of International Development, vol. 11, No. 4 (June 1999), pp. 597-612. 17