A/HRC/21/65 with physical rehabilitation, material support, and/or psychological rehabilitation to victims and their families in situations where the Court was active. 16. In his follow-up intervention, Mr. Dolan expressed doubts as to the effectiveness of the Trust Fund for Victims in ensuring the transformative nature of reparations, especially as it did not adequately address the collective nature of mass violence. Mr. Dolan called for a shift in the prioritization of resources by the international community and by States, irrespective of whether a country was resource poor or resource rich. He cited the example of Sierra Leone, where the ratio of spending on prosecution as opposed to reparation was 100 to 1 – with $300 million spent for the Special Court and $3 million devoted to the reparation programme. That amounted to $35,000 per prosecution and $80 per victim. 17. Ms. Guerrero underlined that the lack of development could not be used as an excuse by States for lack of reparations, as they had a legal obligation in that sense and access to justice was essential for development and sustainable peace. D. Remedies in traditional and informal justice processes 18. The Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, affirmed that mechanisms for reparations should strive to have a transformative potential so as to subvert rather than reinforce pre-existing patterns of structural subordination and systemic hierarchies. She noted that many informal justice models, ranging from those that operated independently of the justice system to fully institutionalized programmes, were built on foundations that had historically excluded women and had made it almost impossible for women to articulate their issues or to participate in decisions that had an impact on their rights. Ms. Shaheed expressed concern that those alternative forums may be replicating State subordination by providing legitimacy to non-formal influential groups, often without provision for appealing decisions. Care should, therefore, be taken to monitor customary dispute-resolution mechanisms to ensure that women are integrated and play an active role in the design, implementation and monitoring of those mechanisms. 19. Ms. Shaheed stressed that issues of cultural sensitivity and cultural heritage could also impact on the implementation of non-formal justice mechanisms. For example, in many countries where there were multiple alternative systems of dispute resolutions, the decisions relating to which mechanisms and violations were sanctioned by the State further facilitated and entrenched existing discriminatory practices. She urged States to take those factors into account when considering and identifying culturally appropriate mechanisms. Ms. Shaheed called for further focus on transformative reparations that would not only address violence against women but also assess the outcomes and the impact on women of the implementation of reparation decisions. 20. With regard to non-formal justice mechanisms and administrative reparation orders, Ms. Ferstman noted that although significant progress had been made in developing a normative legal framework for ensuring that remedies were effective, prompt and specific, there continued to be a dichotomy between advancements in norms at the judicial level and decisions emanating from non-formal processes, most notably their frequent failure to protect women’s rights. It was critical, therefore, that States factor in that dichotomy when adopting or endorsing non-formal justice mechanisms. E. Comments from States and non-governmental organizations on good practices and challenges 21. In the ensuing discussion, 35 State representatives, two United Nations entities and five representatives from non-governmental organizations made statements. Speakers 6