A/HRC/25/49 conflicts, mass or grave human rights violations), or the persons involved (soldiers, combatants, victims, political leaders or activists for example).3 6. Memorial expressions are extremely diverse. Major forms include authentic sites (for example concentration camps, former torture and detention centres, sites of mass killings and graves and emblematic monuments of repressive regimes); symbolic sites (such as permanent or ephemeral constructed monuments carrying the names of victims, renamed streets, buildings or infrastructure, virtual memorials on the Internet and museums of history/memory); and activities (such as public apologies, reburials, walking tours, parades and temporary exhibits). In addition, although outside the scope of this report, various cultural expressions (artworks, films, documentaries, literature and sound and light shows addressing a tourist audience, etc.) also contribute to memorialization processes. 7. Memorials thus encompass all kinds of engagements specifically designed to remember the wrongs of the past. This allows for diversity in approaches, as constructed monuments do not always correspond to the wishes or culture of the communities concerned. A. An evolution of expectations regarding memorialization 8. The purpose of memorials has changed dramatically over time. In ancient Greek city states, battlefield memorials were deliberately constructed of wood to enable erosion, opening possibilities for reconciliation between former enemies.4 9. With the passage of time, memorials have shifted from honouring soldiers dying in the line of duty to a victims’ perspective and new visions of reconciliation. Starting in the 1980s, the creation of memorials has become linked to the idea that ensuring public recognition of past crimes is indispensable to the victims, essential for preventing further violence and necessary for redefining national unity. Memorialization is often a demand of victims and society at large5 and the path to national reconciliation is seen to pass through not only legal reparations, but also symbolic reparations such as memorials. 10. The memorial injunction “Never again”, born after the First World War, was framed in the late 1990s through the transitional justice paradigm, whereby the rule of law and promoting democratic cultures are societal guarantees to protect against further tragedies. With the recognition that civilians bear the main brunt of atrocities, memorialization has become a political and sociocultural imperative in reconciliation processes. 11. Contributing to the rise of memorialization was the emergence in the 1980s of the controversial concept of the “duty of remembrance”6 of mass crimes, such as the destruction of European Jews by the Nazis, the slave trade and the violence perpetrated against indigenous peoples. This concept asserts the legitimacy of seeking reparation and drawing lessons even centuries after the actual events. 3 4 5 6 4 See Louis Bickford, “Memoryworks/memory works”, in Transitional Justice, Culture and Society: Beyond Outreach, Clara Ramírez-Barat, ed. (New York, Social Science Research Council, forthcoming, 2014). Miguel. A. Marin Luna “The evolution and present status of the laws of war”, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, vol. 92 (1957), p. 652. Simon Robins, “Challenging the therapeutic ethic: a victim-centred evaluation of the transitional justice process in Timor-Leste”, International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2012), pp. 83–105. Sarah Gensburger, Marie-Claire Lavabre, “Entre ‘devoir de mémoire’ et ‘abus de mémoire’: l a sociologie de la mémoire comme tierce position”, in Histoire, Mémoire et Épistémologie. Autour de Paul Ricœur, Bertrand Müller, ed. (Lausanne, Switzerland, Éditions Payot, 2004).