A/HRC/25/49 Commission on Human Rights, Cherif Bassiouni (E/CN.4/2000/62), formed the basis for the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 60/147. 31. In that resolution, the General Assembly reiterated that memorial processes are part of the broader issue of reparations and recognized that satisfaction should include, where applicable and amongst other important elements such as verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth, an official declaration or a judicial decision restoring the dignity, the reputation and the rights of the victim and of persons closely connected with the victim; a public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility; commemorations and tributes to the victims and inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred in international human rights law and international humanitarian law training and in educational material at all levels. 32. United Nations mechanisms have not yet undertaken a global study to examine memorial practices in the light of these principles. However, some United Nations reports relating to specific country contexts usefully draw attention to this subject. For example, the mapping report of 2010 on human rights abuses committed between 1993 and 2003 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo forcefully stresses the need to preserve the memory of the violations and, examining concrete examples, points out the danger of memorialization inciting revenge.15 Similarly, the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on its mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina concluded that the issue of memorials had caused much controversy and unhappiness in the country (A/HRC/16/48/Add.1, para. 48). The Working Group also carefully considered the implementation of the recommendations of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission of Morocco regarding community reparations, including the conversion of former detention centres into memorials (A/HRC/13/31/Add.1, paras. 56-66). B. Diplomatic conferences 33. Major conferences on the Holocaust in the 1990s and 2000s in London, Washington, D.C. and Stockholm contributed to firmly establishing symbolic reparation as an integral part of the international agenda. Participants shared a commitment to commemorate the victims, to honour those who stood against the Holocaust and to encourage appropriate forms of Holocaust remembrance in their countries.16 34. The gap in memorialization regarding slave trades and colonization was addressed at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001. In the Durban Declaration, States acknowledged and profoundly regretted the massive human suffering and the plight of millions of men, women and children caused by slavery, the slave trade, including the transatlantic slave trade, apartheid, genocide and colonialism. They called upon the States concerned to honour the memories of the victims of past tragedies. Noting that some had taken steps expressing regret, remorse or apologies, they called on all those who had not yet contributed to restoring the dignity of the victims to find appropriate ways to do so. The deliberations were particularly stormy, as some Western countries feared that an obligation to express repentance would lead to claims for financial compensation. 15 16 8 See http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/ZR/DRC_MAPPING_REPORT_FINAL_EN.pdf, paras. 1006–1115 in particular. Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, para. 6.