A/HRC/44/46/Add.1 families, which was seldom implemented in practice), gaps in childhood development, social aversion, bullying and rejection from peers, social pressure for not having children, and extreme difficulty dealing with childhood traumas in adult life. 11 During the 2001 lawsuit, several organizations had been set up, including the Association of families and bereaved relatives of Hansen’s disease patients. In June 2019, Kumamoto District Court ruled that the Government had the obligation to compensate the family members of persons who had been forcibly segregated in the sanatoriums. 23. In its ruling, the court acknowledged that the harm resulting from discrimination on the grounds of Hansen’s disease suffered by those family members took several forms. They included: the loss of the minimum socialization necessary for personal development as a result of rejection at school and social ostracism; the loss of learning and characterbuilding opportunities owing to rejection at school; the loss of marriage opportunities; the loss of opportunities for self-fulfilment and financial loss caused by limited employment opportunities; the loss of opportunities for personal development and self-fulfilment owing to restrictions in a broad range of life choices regarding careers and friendships, or as a result of keeping secret the fact that a family member was affected by Hansen’s disease; and having a family relationship damaged as a result of being unable to live with a family member affected by Hansen’s disease in order to avoid discrimination. The court also pointed out that the State’s isolation policy was the cause of discrimination against the family members of persons affected by Hansen’s disease. 24. In its ruling, the court observed that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare had, since 1960, had the obligation to ensure the normalization of the way society perceived Hansen’s disease and to fight prejudice and discrimination. The Ministry also had the obligation to guarantee outpatient care and to duly make that known to the general public. Therefore, the court also found that the Government should make an official apology and take all necessary measures to raise awareness about Hansen’s disease. Since the promotion of human rights falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, the court considered the Ministry of Justice to have had the obligation, from1996 to 2001, to carry out activities aimed at promoting the human rights of persons affected by Hansen’s disease and their family members and eliminating discrimination against them. Through a careful analysis of the Ministry of Justice’s endeavour, the court concluded that it had failed to fulfil that obligation. 25. Although the Government did not agree with some parts of the reasoning of the court’s ruling, it again decided not to appeal and set up a large-scale administrative programme for providing material compensation. In 2019, it adopted the Act on the payment of compensation to family members of former Hansen’s disease patients. The Act acknowledges that the former government policy of forced isolation created an inaccurate understanding of the disease among the public, enhanced discrimination, and resulted in severe hardship for not only persons affected by Hansen’s disease, but also their family members. The Act covers spouses, parents, children and siblings of persons affected by Hansen’s disease, as well as other close family members and in-laws who lived with individuals who developed the disease by 31 March 1996. Not only plaintiffs but also nonplaintiff family members can receive compensation. Nevertheless, the Act restricts beneficiaries to persons who lived in the past with relatives affected by Hansen’s disease. 26. The 2001 and 2019 court decisions were key to triggering the Government’s recognition of its responsibility for the gross human rights violations of persons affected by Hansen’s disease and their family members and in establishing large-scale reparation programmes. As clearly explained by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence in his report on reparation (A/69/518), reparation programmes, besides turning victims into beneficiaries, have the positive effects of promoting trust in institutions, strengthening the rule of law and encouraging social integration or reconciliation. To the extent that reparations are a justice measure, they rest on general norms and their benefits have important positive spillover effects, one of which is to exemplify the fulfilment of the legal obligation to take the violation of rights seriously. Such historical processes in Japan allowed persons affected by Hansen’s disease and their 11 Ai Kurosaka, Fighting Prejudice in Japan: The Families of Hansen’s Diseases Patients Speak Out (Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press, 2019). 7