A/HRC/4/33 page 21 individual sense of justice.28 Victims of torture are not primarily interested in monetary compensation, but in the means of reparation that are best suited to restore their dignity and humanity. A full and impartial investigation of the truth and the recognition of the facts, together with an apology by those individuals and authorities responsible, often provide more satisfaction to the victim than payment of money. 65. The Guidelines provide for different categories of reparation. Since torture constitutes a particularly serious violation of human rights, criminal prosecution and appropriate punishment meted out to the perpetrator is perceived by the victim as the most effective means of satisfaction and justice. In addition, criminal investigations serve the purpose of establishing truth and pave the way for other forms of reparation. Guarantees of non-repetition, such as amending relevant laws, fighting impunity and taking effective preventive or deterrent measures, constitute a form of reparation if torture is practised in a widespread or systematic manner. Restitution does not apply to torture victims as the suffering inflicted cannot be taken away. Monetary compensation for the immaterial damage (pain and suffering) or material damage (rehabilitation costs, etc.) may provide satisfaction as an additional form of reparation. 66. Since victims of torture often suffer from long-term physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorders, various types of medical, psychological, social and legal rehabilitation usually are best suited to provide relief. Long-term rehabilitation measures, which are often provided by special torture rehabilitation centres, are fairly cost intensive. 67. The Special Rapporteur congratulates civil society organizations such as the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, which works in collaboration with a global network of nearly 200 rehabilitation centres and programmes worldwide in promoting and supporting the rehabilitation of torture victims across the globe. The Special Rapporteur warmly welcomes the support provided by Governments to such rehabilitation centres. The European Union (EU) is currently the biggest donor in this respect (inside and outside the EU) with a total budget of US$ 29 million. This is followed by the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which provided US$ 17 million for the period 2005-2006, the largest contributions coming from the United States of America, Denmark and the Netherlands. 68. While congratulating these Governments for their generous contributions, the Special Rapporteur would like to remind States that article 14 generates an obligation primarily for the State that has acted wrongfully. The Special Rapporteur proposes that consideration be given to devising mechanisms to hold accountable those States in which torture is systematic or widespread in order that they may live up to their obligation under article 14. For example, such States might be required to contribute adequate funds to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. In addition, the respective costs for treatment should ideally be borne by the individual perpetrators, their superiors and the authorities directly responsible. If States provided effective remedies ensuring that the individual perpetrators are held accountable to pay all the costs of long-term rehabilitation for torture victims, that may have a stronger deterrent effect than criminal punishments. 28 For a discussion by the Special Rapporteur on the impact of torture on victims, see the report to the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session (A/59/324), paras. 43-60. -----