A/HRC/34/62 • The call for victim participation and the consequent empowerment may contribute to making victims visible, helping them achieve a place in the public sphere that may have been denied to them before • The equalizing effect of participation facilitates the identification of commonalities of experiences, values and principles among different types of victims as well as between victims and non-victims, which is important for the sake of coalition- and consensus-formation regarding transitional justice policies • The participation of victims puts a human face on discussions about transitional justice, providing an important reminder that the discussions are not merely technical matters and in the process motivating stakeholders to reach an agreement that might otherwise prove elusive 27. In thinking about the important contributions that victims can make to transitional justice measures, it is crucial not to obscure the fact that participation also imposes burdens on them, in addition to those that they already carry by virtue of their past victimization. Participation in transitional justice measures can involve security risks, social risks, including stigmatization and isolation, economic costs and the risk of retraumatization, among others. While some of these risks can be mitigated, in most circumstances it is difficult to eliminate them totally. Ignoring these risks when designing participatory processes would be tantamount to the instrumentalization of victims. 28. A full analysis of victim participation in transitional justice measures calls for making some distinctions that can be introduced in the present report but not used to the extent that they merit. Participation can take place at any or all of the design, implementation and monitoring stages of a transitional justice process. As will be seen, participation can also take place through different modalities, ranging from qualitative and quantitative consultations, workshops, seminars, community meetings, debates, focus groups and in-depth interviews and quantitative tools such as surveys, to direct involvement in transitional justice institutions. 29. In talking about victim participation, it is easy to elide the deep differences that may exist between different victim groups. Even in post-authoritarian settings, in which the absolute majority of violations may have been the responsibility of a single agent, victims have been seen to differentiate themselves on the basis of many grounds: by types of violation, perceptions of salience (e.g., of having been particularly targeted), identity markers such as urban/rural, student/worker and indigenous/non-indigenous, as well as religious, ethnic, linguistic and political factors, to name a few. Failing to heed some of these distinctions may defeat the purpose of participation. At the same time, incorporating real and perceived distinctions between different types of victims in programme design and implementation increases the magnitude of the challenges to the equal, non-discriminatory treatment of all victims, risks entrenching distinctions that may not justify differential treatment and, most importantly, may undermine the message that transitional justice measures intend to send about the equality of rights of all. 30. Finally, it is crucial to keep in mind that “victimhood” is only one dimension of the complex identity of a victim and that while transitional justice measures are indeed meant to provide recognition to victims and acknowledge the harm and suffering that they endured, their main purpose is to provide recognition of their equal status as rights holders. 6