A/HRC/21/65 acknowledged that States bore ultimate responsibility and were obliged to act with due diligence vis-à-vis violence against women, including by ensuring effective, prompt, just, transformative and culturally sensitive remedies and reparations for women who have been subjected to violence. They agreed that effective remedies entailed those complex considerations and that effective access to justice was a prerequisite to increasing women’s awareness of the available mechanisms. Speakers emphasized that remedies and reparations were a part of a comprehensive and holistic approach to eliminating violence against women that drew together prevention, protection and punishment alongside the rights of victims to assistance, compensation, rehabilitation and non-repetition. 22. In relation to developing reparation policies and programmes, a number of speakers called for the substantive participation of women who have been subjected to violence and civil society actors, such as women’s groups and community leaders, alongside men and boys, to ensure a holistic concept of remedies and reparations. Among reparation examples provided by States, it was argued that remedies and reparations included: social workers in police stations; shelters and crisis centres for abused women; financial support for legal-aid centres; mobile courts in isolated communities; programmes to raise public awareness; and the involvement of women in the decision-making processes of shaping policies and mechanisms. 23. Speakers requested that more effort be put into ensuring that remedies and reparations that are available to women victims of violence are specific to individual circumstances and culture in order to prevent discrimination, stigmatization and revictimization of victims of violence, particularly women victims of sexual violence. Speakers also urged for careful reflection on ingrained patriarchal norms, stereotyping and gender assumptions that contributed to the re-victimization of women who experience violence. There was discussion on challenges in developing consistent polices in view of differing countries’ religious and cultural specificities and difficulties in ensuring linkages between judicial and administrative reparation orders. In addition, questions were raised as regards the ways in which international mechanisms could contribute to ensuring that national reparation programmes and schemes engage with civil society; form part of good practices; and are adequately resourced. Furthermore, questions pertaining to effective communication and cooperation at the international, regional and national levels to counter underlying causes of discrimination were answered by the panellists. F. Conclusions 24. In their concluding remarks, panellists called for a shift in thinking on reparations for women who experience violence as a gender equality issue and called on States to uphold their human rights obligations in that regard. Panellists called for reparation programmes not to be limited to financial compensation, but to focus on restoring the respect for and dignity of women who experience violence while ensuring the transformative potential of mechanisms in catalysing new thinking that would have a substantial impact on women’s lives and address the root cause of the violence that women experience. III. Panel II: Protecting women human rights defenders A. Opening statements 25. The panel was opened by Mona Rishmawi, Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch, on behalf of the Deputy High Commissioner for Human 7