 Since I am coming from Croatia, ex-Yugoslav country, memory and politics of memory and dealing with the past at all is very sensitive and very present problem in Croatian society. And we are not dealing, we are struggling with our past and with our memory. So in one way there is always individual process. All of us we need to deal with not only with our history but also with the history of society. But then it is in a way society memory, common memory. So since it is individual process but also society process, the state should be involved in that process. And for example through textbooks in schools, through memory of the memories of some events, taking care of monuments and so on. So I think it is both very important for all of us as individuals but also members of society to have in mind, to keep in mind memory and dealing with the past. Croatian society is divided, deeply divided, not because of future but it is divided on the past. Croatian society is not divided about tax policies or foreign policy or future of European Union. It is still divided about Second World War period, about socialist period or about last war in 90s. So there are really different aspects of dealing with those periods and different institutions. Of course state, especially during 90s, state was trying to introduce one patriot approach and history was in a way tool for rising patriotism, nationalism, nation building. And this process was not always democratic, so it is still struggle, sometimes between NGOs and state, sometimes between individuals, experts, journalists, different experts are involved in that process and it should be like that but strong revisionism is present and it is for sure connected with the present situation. During the 45 years of socialist period our approach to history was very tendentious, very monopolized by one party and at the beginning of 90s we all agreed that some kind of revisionism or some kind of re-evaluation of history is needed. But what happened in Croatia is that one narrative, one official narrative was just replaced with another official narrative. So from 90s till today we don't have open dialogue about the past, we don't have open multi-perspective approach and it's obvious in street names, in monuments, in public speeches of politicians, celebrities and so on. So I think every aspect is very important but I think crucial is scientific approach because right now in the moment everybody used chance to say something about the past and to express their impressions about the past but in majority of cases without any argument. So it is democracy but I don't think that freedom of speech should also consider freedom of hate speech and sometimes it is just it. So I think dealing with the past should be all society process, it should be involved all different factors in society but I think that science experts, they should be crucial in that and state should help freedom of research, freedom of publishing books, lectures and so on.