A/HRC/25/49 53. Memorialization processes that only identify one group as victims while obliterating serious crimes committed against other parties in the conflict are of concern. When, for example, after a civil war memorials are erected that are devoted to the victims of one ethnic group without consideration for others, this may heighten sectarian tensions, fuel an “ethnicization” of the victims and lead to further violence. In the most acute cases, when memorials bear symbols exclusively associated with one community, be it ethnic, religious, linguistic or political, they delimit communities, drawing boundaries between people, including by marking territorial borders within and between States. Such delimitations impact the freedom of movement of people who may feel uncomfortable in a specific cultural and symbolic landscape. Consequently, memorials can contribute to continuing ethnic cleansing started during the war. 54. Memorialization processes are emancipatory only when all sides, the political sequences and consequences of events are remembered and when the community and especially key stakeholders are able to have a voice in crafting the development of transitional justice strategies.29 It is crucial to open safe public spaces that allow the participation of all in the discussion and ensure the credibility of the process, as well as its ownership by people: in the end, it is the process itself, i.e. the conversation about the past, more than the end result, be it a monument or a performance, that is most beneficial. 55. One imperative is to avoid a flattening of all situations, which is conducive to denying past wrongs. There are often various circles of victims and there is not necessarily a moral and political equivalence between the conflicting parties.30 Moreover, one cannot always insert the viewpoint of the perpetrators within the narratives of the victims. 56. Tragedies also produce heroic figures who become subjects of memorialization. In the 1950s, the Yad Vashem memorial in Israel was the first dedicated space recognizing people who risked their own life to save people from persecution. Thereafter, similar initiatives were undertaken in other countries (Armenia, Burundi, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia). In relation to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, shedding light on such people and their actions operates a shift in the memorialization process, helping to counter the belief that people’s actions are predetermined by national or ethnic affiliations: communities are never the monoliths the conflict tries to establish. Solidarity, not only violence, occurs during war. Such recognition carries moral and educational meaning, demonstrating that, despite risks, choice, disobedience and resistance are possible paths.31 B. The issue of temporality 57. When should memorialization processes start and for how long should they continue? Memorialization may seem to start too soon, just after or even during a conflict, not allowing the process of reflection to come to maturity, but the absence of memorialization may be a cause of further suffering for victims and their families. In any event, when State authorities are unwilling to initiate memorialization processes, such processes do nonetheless commence, initiated by civil society or victims, but also by conflicting parties. State authorities, therefore, have no choice but to step in. 29 30 31 12 Clara Ramírez-Barat, “Transitional justice and the public sphere”, in Transitional Justice, Culture and Society: Beyond Outreach. See Olivier de Frouville, “Le droit de l’homme à la vérité en droit international: à propos de quelques ‘considérations inactuelles’”, in La vérité, Olivier Guerrier, ed. (Saint-Etienne, France, Université de Saint-Etienne, 2013) pp. 129-151. Svetlana Broz, Good People in an Evil Time (New York, Other Press, 2005).