A/HRC/27/24 knowledge and experience in the field of genocide prevention since 1948, however that knowledge had not yet been followed by timely political decisions to prevent genocide. 27. Mr. Sisson referred to the 2013 report of the Secretary-General on the responsibility to protect, which had elaborated the emerging notion of “atrocity crimes” in relation to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. He stressed that an inclusive approach to prevention and punishment was both useful and necessary; it would create the basis for the development of a holistic prevention strategy. He noted that such a strategy would become operational much earlier in the conflict cycle than had been the case so far, as until now the focus had been on the later stage of genocidal intent. It would generate synergies among the different communities engaged in the responsibility to protect, the prevention of genocide, the protection of civilians, and transitional justice, beyond their respective lines of action, and would unite them in a joint endeavour. 28. Having highlighted the importance of a rapid response to stop the continuing cycle of mass atrocity, Mr. Sisson discussed several elements that such a response should entail. First, no society was immune from the threat of atrocities. Atrocity crimes could happen anywhere and at any time. Prevention was thus a central task for any sovereign and responsible State. Second, prevention was a permanent endeavour. History had taught us that prevention failed when violence and displacement took place on a large scale. Therefore, operational plans for prevention needed to be in place long before that happened. Prevention of atrocities should be understood in a way similar to prevention of threats to public health. Prevention required a permanent framework, so that when a threat was detected, the whole system was ready to act in a proactive way. Third, prevention was a cross-cutting issue. The root causes of atrocity crimes were manifold. Preventive measures needed to be part of the national agenda and linked in a consistent and effective way with long-term endeavours in the fields of peace, security and development. At times of mounting tensions, responsive and decisive mechanisms should be in place at the national level, supported by regional or international actors when needed. Fourth, dealing with the past was a prerequisite for prevention. Initiatives for prevention were especially challenging in post-conflict or post-authoritarian contexts, in which there was a legacy of human rights violations and abuses. In such cases, the updated set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity provided a useful framework for addressing past abuses and providing redress, by combining initiatives in the area of truth-seeking, criminal accountability, victim compensation and institutional reform. Concerted efforts to deal with the past could serve to address fundamental grievances and rebuild trust in public institutions. Without such efforts, prevention policies would lack credibility. 29. In his conclusion, Mr. Sisson mentioned two positive recent developments. First, he highlighted the initiative undertaken by the Secretary-General to develop the six-point Rights up Front Action Plan. That response mechanism placed prevention and protection at the heart of United Nations strategies and operational activities. As such, it represented a serious effort on the part of the United Nations system to learn from its past failings; it placed a new emphasis on field-led activities and a coordinated approach from headquarters to prevent, or to end, large-scale violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Mr. Sisson emphasized that that effort needed the support of Member States and civil society. Second, as had also been mentioned by the Special Advisor, Mr. Sisson drew attention to the first international meeting of the Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes initiative, on the topic of prevention and protection, that had taken place in Costa Rica early in March 2014. That event had been organized at the initiative of Argentina, Costa Rica, Denmark, Switzerland and the United Republic of Tanzania, in cooperation with the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, and had been attended by representatives of 56 Member States of the United Nations. The participants had elaborated suggestions and recommendations for the 8