A/HRC/14/22 Principles and Guidelines) adopted in 2005.5 They present themselves as grounded in the recognition of a right to remedy for victims of violations of international human rights law, as found in numerous international instruments of human rights and humanitarian law. The right to remedy is said to encompass victims’ equal and effective access to justice and adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered. The Basic Principles and Guidelines emphasize that they do not entail new international or domestic legal obligations, but rather identify mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for existing legal obligations. 16. The Basic Principles and Guidelines define the contours of State responsibility for providing reparation to victims for acts or omissions which can be attributed to the State. States are responsible for their failures to meet their international obligations even when substantive breaches originate in the conduct of private persons, as States have to exercise due diligence to eliminate, reduce and mitigate the incidence of private discrimination.6 In cases where a person or other entity is found liable for reparation to a victim, such party should provide reparation. The State should endeavour to establish national programmes for reparation and other assistance to victims in the event that the parties liable for the harm are unable or unwilling to meet their obligations. The State shall enforce domestic judgements for reparations against individuals or entities liable for the harm suffered and endeavour to enforce valid foreign legal judgements for reparations. 17. The Basic Guidelines and Principles affirm that the modality of reparation must be proportional to the gravity of the violation and can include the following forms: restitution, as those measures to restore the victim to his/her original situation before the violation, including restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return to one’s place of residence, restoration of employment and return of property; compensation for any economically assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation including physical or mental harm, lost opportunities including employment, education and social benefits, and material and moral damages; measures of rehabilitation, including medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services; measures of satisfaction including, among others, the verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth, the search for the whereabouts of the disappeared, public apologies, judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations, commemorations and tributes to the victims; and guarantees of nonrepetition, including measures which contribute to prevention such as ensuring effective civilian control of military and security forces, protecting human rights defenders, providing human rights education and reviewing and reforming laws contributing to or allowing gross violations of international human rights law. 18. The quantitative and qualitative differences between individual and gross and systematic violations might affect the scope and nature of remedies that can and should be afforded. For one thing, the idea of full reparation is virtually impossible in contexts of 5 6 GE.10-13109 Human Rights Resolution 2005/35, E/CN.4/2005/L.48. See E/CN.4/2006/61. See also general recommendation No. 19 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, recalling that the Convention calls on States parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise, and that under general international law and specific human rights covenants, States may also be responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation. See also that Committee’s The Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence et al. v. Austria (Communication No. 5/2005) and The Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence et al. v. Austria, (Communication No. 6/2005), and the Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of 29 July, 1988, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988). 7