Duty to Remember or Commemoration?

This year, our association once again participated in the 83rd anniversary of the deportation convoys from the Milles camp to Auschwitz, presented as a "duty to remember."
But what does this expression, often heard during ceremonies on July 14, November 11, or at Camerone, really mean?
Are they right to speak of a "duty to remember"?

A commemoration consists of keeping alive the memory of an event through a date, a monument, a street name, or a ceremony.
It honors a significant episode in national or international history and aims to bring the community together around a shared memory.
Commemorations recall, celebrate, and transmit.

The duty to remember has a different scope.
It aims to prevent collective forgetting and avoid the repetition of the ideological excesses that led to persecution. It's not simply a matter of paying tribute, but of drawing a moral lesson from history.
Appearing in the 1990s, well after the Second World War and the Holocaust, the expression was later extended to other tragedies, such as slavery or the Armenian genocide.
It reflects a moral obligation: to remember the victims so that such tragedies never happen again.
For states, this duty is essential, especially when they bear some responsibility.
It contrasts with the ancient tradition of amnesty treaties, which imposed forgetting in the name of peace.
The duty to remember, on the contrary, reminds us that crimes against humanity are imprescriptible, that is, they are always liable to prosecution, even decades later.

Is it a duty to remember, or simply a commemoration?
Louis Perez y Cid