A/HRC/17/22 violations were not from Timor-Leste, and wondered how to bring third countries to participate in reparations. The issue of the definition of rehabilitation, which had been traditionally understood through a medicalized lens, was raised. It was also noted that in the case of the so-called “comfort women”, reparations claimed went beyond monetary compensation, including a dimension of remembrance and recognition of victims. The representative of Bangladesh mentioned that one major challenge was to reach the totality of victims of violence against women and raise awareness at community level. There was a need to face the issue of awareness at the community level and to address poverty. Finally, it was highlighted that in Latin America there had been an increasing acknowledgement of State responsibility regarding violence against women which influenced the outcome of the Cotton Field case. 37. Ms. Hossain explained that international human rights law was used to identify the nature of the discrimination and violations; reaching out to elected officials and making them aware of the existing law and penalties even for acts committed by private persons. Mr. Carranza indicated that some truth commissions had recommended that corporations that had profited from the conflict should fund reparations programmes, but these recommendations had not been implemented. He added that the International Criminal Court still had no reparations system in place, the issue being complicated by the fact that the Court convicts individuals and not States. Finally, Ms. Rubio-Marín noted that the European Court of Human Rights had a narrow interpretation of reparations, intended mainly as monetary compensations, while the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had taken a broader interpretation. She concluded by insisting that creativity and flexibility are needed to reach out to the victims. D. Panel 4: Challenges, good practices and opportunities in the prevention of violence against women 38. The fourth panel comprised: Jacqui True, senior lecturer at the University of Auckland, New Zealand; Zarizana Abdul Aziz, a lawyer and director of the Due Diligence Project at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, United States; Andrea Medina Rosas, representing the network of women from Ciudad Juárez, Mexico; Ahmad Zia Langari, a Commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; Rita Sabat, assistant professor at Notre-Dame University; and John Kapito, Chairperson of the Malawi Human Rights Commission. 39. Ms. True explored the broader political and economic context of the violence and insecurity as experienced by women, and how economic empowerment could serve as a deterrent to violence. She observed that global and local economic power and structures played a role in reinforcing gender inequalities that made women more vulnerable to violence, in particular women living in poverty, migrant women, indigenous women, and young or elderly women. However, the United Nations Secretary-General’s in-depth study on violence against women acknowledged that legal and policy provisions on violence against women had not extended to the economic sphere or explored the economic causes and impact of this violence. 40. Ms. True highlighted the lack of research on what preventative factors to violence against women are, as opposed to risk factors. Risk factors at economic, political and social levels included the acceptance of violence in the society, the acceptance of male superiority, the low status of women, and, at the individual level, a low level of education, lack of economic power, alcohol abuse, lack of adequate housing, or lack of independent outcome. Preventative factors at the economic, social and political levels included property/land rights for women, adequate housing, economic independence, secondary education, gender equality norms, and norms on violence. At the individual level, 10