A/HRC/17/22 the persistence of the religious personal codes and courts – two articles had been introduced into the law to make sure that the power and authority of religious courts would not be contradicted or hindered – and the inability of the law to deal with abuses stemming directly from the personal status laws, for instance when these deal with custody of children. 27. In the discussions that followed, a question was asked about examples in European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence of how dealing with impunity would imply a local transformation in interpreting the law. The representative of the European Union noted the importance of addressing impunity, especially concerning female human rights defenders, and wondered if any good practices could be shared on how to combine punitive and preventive measures. A civil society representative insisted on the urgency of setting up specialized centres for reinsertion and rehabilitation. The representative of Turkey mentioned the national campaign launched on the international day against violence against women and noted that Turkey had implemented the decision of the Court in the Opuz case. Comments were further made about the importance of human rights education to addressing violence against women and on how universities could reinforce their participation in the work of the International Criminal Court and other courts. 28. Ms. Coomber recognized that, while legal aid was essential, there was also a need to consider how to improve investigative measures and evidentiary requirements. Regarding the European Court of Human Rights cases, she noticed that, while governments are quick to pay monetary compensations, law reform is a slower and less transparent process. Ms. Sellers reiterated the need for applying a gender lens when addressing issues related to genocide and crimes against humanity, not underestimating the relevance of the gender of victims. Ms. Rouhana mentioned that her organization had created a “clinic for men under stress” adopting the strategy of not naming it a clinic for abusers. C. Panel 3: Challenges, good practices and opportunities regarding remedy and reparations for women subjected to violence 29. The panel comprised Ruth Rubio-Marín, Chair in Comparative Public Law at the European University Institute; Sara Hossain, a lawyer and member of the consultative group of Bangladesh Legal Aid Service Trust; and Ruben Carranza, Director of the Reparative Justice Programme of the International Center on Transitional Justice. 30. Ms. Rubio-Marín underlined three main challenges in setting up gender-sensitive reparations: (a) identification of facts through data gathering and investigation which needs to take violence against women seriously and consider the difficulties encountered in providing evidence; (b) understanding the extent of the harm caused by the violations when there is a lack of knowledge and ability to establish patterns of sequels and consequences for the victims; and (c) understanding the harm caused to family members and communities beyond the realm of the right-holder. Ms. Rubio-Marín added two subsequent challenges, namely how to craft gender-specific reparations and ensure that they are an opportunity to transform the hierarchies of power that led to the violence. 31. Ms. Rubio-Marín reviewed the Inter-American Court of Human Rights landmark judgement in González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico that dealt with femicide in Ciudad Juárez, noting that it was the first time that an international human rights court had endorsed the notion that reparations have to be gender-sensitive and transformative. She explained that the judgement was made possible by the fact that the Court was willing to rely on soft evidence and various sources of documentation to set an adequate standard of proof. This broad understanding was also facilitated because the Court was open to taking the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence 8