helped shift Colombian public opinion, creating greater space for conflict protagonists to reintegrate as legitimate actors into their communities and thereby contribute to the durability of the peace process.16 Northern Ireland Northern Ireland presents a useful model of direct inclusion in negotiations, particularly of women. There was an effort to engage communities through a citizens’ inquiry called Initiative ’92, which worked with community groups to think about peace settlements and ensure engagement with the political process. There were academic “peace polls” to help negotiators keep track of public attitudes. There was an elected Forum for Political Dialogue, which enabled political parties of a minimum size to have representatives in the forum – including the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition, a multicommunity group which won two seats in the Forum, and therefore had a seat at the negotiating table.17 Guatemala After more than three decades of conflict, Guatemala ended a conflict with an inclusive process that offer a formal, non-binding advisory role to civil society. The Commission for National Reconciliation (CNR) brought together government, political parties and religious leaders, and initiated a Grand National Dialogue (GND), with delegates from government, political parties, religious organizations, refugee groups, human rights experts, labor unions, students, business leaders and academics. The consultation process helped pave the way for stronger national support for a formal negotiation process. When peace talks started, it involved an Assembly of Civil Society (ACS), an advisory group which discussed and made recommendations on 6 out of 7 negotiations topics (excluding military/ceasefire arrangements). The recommendations were non-binding, but most were adopted.18 3. The Flawed Approach of the Afghan Government and its Allies Victims have long made clear their demand to be heard, but have so far been largely ignored by the government. In the AIHRC’s national survey, A Call for Justice (2005), about 95% of Afghans supported truth finding processes19, and 88% supported reparation for war victims.20 The recent victim representation process of the International Criminal Court (ICC), between November 2017 and 16 Brett, R. (2018) The role of victims’ delegations in the Santos-FARC peace talks, p. 290. In: Druliolle, V. & Brett, R. (eds.) The politics of victimhood in post-conflict societies: A comparative and analytical perspectives. St Anthony’s series, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 17 “Nine Models for Inclusion of Civil Society in Peace Processes,” Institute for Inclusive Security (IIS), 2013. https://www.inclusivesecurity.org/publication/nine-models-for-inclusion-of-civil-society-in-peace-processes/. “Northern Ireland’s Women’s Coalition: Institutionalising a political voice and ensuring representation,” Conciliation Resources, 2002. https://www.c-r.org/accord/public-participation/northern-ireland-s-women-scoalition-institutionalising-political-voice 18 Ibid IIS. See also, “Guatemala’s peace process: Context, analysis and evaluation,” Conciliation Resources 2002. https://www.c-r.org/accord/public-participation/guatemala-s-peace-process-context-analysis-andevaluation 19 AIHRC, A call for justice: A national consultation on past human rights violations in Afghanistan, p. 29, 2005 20 Ibid 2005, p. 33.