A/HRC/44/46/Add.1 access to, and contribution to cultural life. The struggle of persons affected by Hansen’s disease in Japan to preserve their history and make it available to society at large has therefore greatly influenced the backdrop against which policymaking takes place. Their struggle to preserve their own history and to tell it from their lived experience has been a key component for systemic change in the country. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government to ensure continuity to their pioneering efforts and promote them as good practices at the international level by supporting the efforts to include the Nagashimaaiseien sanatorium on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage List. V. Challenges A. Gaps in the reparation scheme 34. Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that everyone has the right to an effective remedy for the violations of his or her fundamental rights. That right is expanded upon in several international human rights instruments, including article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Additionally, jurisprudence has confirmed that reparation transcends monetary compensation, which should be accompanied by additional measures with regard to: investigation and prosecution; restitution of rights and freedoms, as well as employment or property; legal reform; rehabilitation measures; medical care; symbolic reparation and memorialization; public apologies and official recognition of the State’s responsibility for violations.18 35. Redress should fit the needs of the victims and be proportional to the gravity of the violations. It should also duly compensate for any economically assessable damage that resulted from the violations. 19 The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law include five forms of reparation: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction measures and guarantees of non-repetition. As explained by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, reparation programmes are more complex if they distribute benefits of more distinct types and in more distinct ways that their alternatives (A/69/518, para. 30). In order for something to count as reparation, it has to be accompanied by an acknowledgment of responsibility and it has to be linked, precisely, to truth, justice and guarantees of non-recurrence (ibid., para. 11). 36. While the Special Rapporteur considers the measures that followed the 2001 and 2019 court decisions in favour of persons affected by Hansen’s disease and their family members to be positive and highly comprehensive, she has identified some gaps in the reparation programmes developed by the Government which she brings to its attention. Aside from the provision of compensation, public apologies and memorialization processes that have already been put into place, additional measures might strengthen the spillover effects of the remedies that have already been provided. 37. First, the aforementioned measures fail to acknowledge the responsibility of particular professional communities, such as the medical, law, welfare and media communities, as was indicated in 2005 by the Verification Committee in its report. 20 After hearing several testimonies and examining relevant documentation, the Special Rapporteur believes that the medical community in particular should be held accountable for the implementation of the segregation policies and its anomalous extension over time. She nonetheless recognizes that the medical community is not a homogenous group in any State, 18 19 20 10 Diana Contreras-Garduño and Sebastiaan Rombouts, “Collective reparations for indigenous communities before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Merkourios, vol. 27, No. 72 (2010). Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, para. 10. See www.mhlw.go.jp/english/policy/health/01/pdf/01.pdf.