A/HRC/24/42 comprehensive manner. Truth commissions give voice to victims and affirm their status as rights holders, contribute to social integration, help set reform priorities, and provide essential information in realizing other transitional justice measures. 92. The appeal of truth commissions has not waned, but they face serious challenges, not limited to post-conflict situations. The Special Rapporteur calls attention to the overburdening of commissions as manifested by their difficulties in delivering on their objectives within the mandated deadlines; controversies surrounding the aptness of particular commissioners, and discord among them; and abiding critiques about poor implementation of their recommendations. 93. Mandates of truth commissions have suffered significant expansion: commissions are expected to address a significantly broader array of violations, occurring over longer periods of time, in more complex settings. One very positive dimension of the expansion of the thematic mandate of truth commissions relates to the specific attention they have increasingly paid to women’s rights. 94. The functions of commissions have also considerably expanded: whereas commissions used to concentrate on fact-finding and victim-tracing (and made recommendations concerning victim redress and prevention), these functions have not only grown significantly in complexity, but new functions have been added. Commissions are now expected to provide comprehensive analysis of whole contexts and underlying causes. Furthermore, their preventive function now goes beyond making basic reform proposals regarding institutions actually involved in the violations. Rather, they are expected to generate comprehensive, structural reform proposals. Given these trends, it should come as no surprise that commissions are finding it increasingly difficult to satisfy growing expectations. 95. Moreover, the expansion in the functions of commissions appears almost openended. Two functions under consideration deserve special comment. First, a potential arbitration role for truth commission concerning cases of corruption has been suggested. The Special Rapporteur notes the enormous administrative burden, the challenge in guaranteeing fair quasi-judicial procedures, the reputational risks, and the tensions with the investigative function concerning human rights violations of a truth commission this combination may generate. 96. Second, some commissions under consideration are expected to achieve reconciliation with an emphasis on victim-perpetrator pardon procedures. These procedures will impose a huge burden on, and serious risks for, victims, raise questions about the voluntary nature of pardons, and are not designed to address the systemic and structural dimension of violations, thus falling short of ensuring reconciliation at societal level. 97. The tendency to expand the mandates of commissions, especially when not supported by adequate funding, multidisciplinary expertise of the commissioners and staff, and a sufficiently long preparatory period, is particularly challenging. 98. Truth commissions derive their power, to a large extent, from the moral authority and the expertise of commissioners, hence the selection of commissioners is crucial to their success. Neither direct nor consultative procedures have prevented some questionable appointments. Appointment procedures that insufficiently vet commissioners for professionalism, integrity and expertise or that prioritize the partisan political affiliation or ethnic identities of commissioners (likely to track prevailing political or social cleavages) continue to generate challenges to commissions. Apportioning seats within the commission to individuals who are meant to represent particular constituencies invites posturing and “block voting”. 26