In practice, trials and truth commissions may compete for the same information or physical evidence, which might hamper the efforts of the other to secure possession of such information.24 The simultaneous pursuit of various mechanisms may also give rise to public confusion about the different goals and operations of these institutions, and may cause rivalry between those supporting each process. These rivalries, in turn, may lead to people involved in various transitional justice efforts to draw unhelpful and overly simplistic conclusions (e.g., truth commissions promote and prioritize forgiveness while trials are essentially divisive). These potential problems should be anticipated, and approaches should be developed to craft constructive and harmonious relationships between mechanisms. This is best done by seeking to harmonize their objectives from the outset or by forming the mechanisms as part of an integrated approach, but, even where this cannot be achieved, the following may still be useful: • Frequent and open lines of communication between various policymakers; • Training and activities that foster understanding of the different mandates; • Clarifying the rights of individuals in respect of each of the mechanisms; and • The conclusion of advance agreements on certain practical issues (including information sharing, exhumations, access to detainees, joint communications, resolving of disputes by independent third parties and outreach events).25 See also: OHCHR rule-of-law tools for post-conflict States on truth commissions and on vetting. 2. Communications strategy and outreach Once a prosecutorial strategy has been devised, it should be communicated to the public in a transparent manner.26 The following are some of the considerations and challenges that may arise in terms of communications and outreach. Most of these lessons stem from the international or hybrid tribunals but also apply in the domestic context: • Importance of transparency and clarity. Limiting a prosecutorial strategy to “those bearing the greatest responsibility” can be difficult to explain to the public. The indictment of a 24 In Sierra Leone, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission stressed its power to grant confidentiality, with the result that its information could not be shared with the Special Court (although the Prosecutor himself declared that he would not seek such information). The Special Court, on the other hand, took the position that accused held in its detention could not come before the Commission in a public hearing, which prevented the Commission from hearing key actors in the conflict. 25  similarly complex relationship may exist between prosecutorial initiatives and reparations. It is rare for the criminal process A to result in direct reparation, although with the establishment of the International Criminal Court, international practice is moving towards an increased emphasis on linking criminal accountability with reparations. 26 It is widely acknowledged that ICTY and ICTR were late in implementing outreach programmes. The Special Court for Sierra Leone has fared better by (1) holding town hall meetings conducted by senior officials in every district of the country; (2) establishing an outreach team within the Court with enough staff to be able to deploy quickly to the districts; (3) conducting a regular interactive forum with civil society to discuss key concerns; and (4) producing a wide variety of material that can be used in domestic and international outreach. 10