A/HRC/17/22 against Women (“Belém do Pará”) as a framework for the due diligence requirements. The Court said that restoration of the situation prior to the violation was not sufficient and confirmed that the structural inequalities had to be subverted. Ms. Rubio-Marín stressed that, for the first time, a case highlighted the gendered nature of the harms and applied a gender perspective to the reparations. 32. Ms. Hossain presented examples of public interest cases where national courts in Bangladesh had applied various international standards, including CEDAW and its general recommendation No. 19, regarding cases of gender-based violence. In these cases, focusing mainly on forced veiling and corporal punishment in public institutions, the remedies provided for by the courts not only focused on individual relief, but also on broader structural changes needed. Ms. Hossain explained that public interest litigation had also been used to prevent extra-judicial penalties against women in the name of “fatwa”, citing a case where the court acknowledged that “fatwas” are not recognized by Bangladesh law and referred to the constitution and international norms that prohibit violence against women. 33. Ms. Hossain noted that the main challenges were, inter alia: (a) the endemic level of non-compliance with judgements; (b) the difficulty in implementing the judgements from the Supreme Court at the local level; (c) the lack of access to justice and legal aid; (d) the lack of witness and victim protection measures; (e) gender bias in the criminal justice system; and (f) widespread structural poverty. In terms of good practices, these public interest cases provided for a combination of individual relief and broader social remedy; the possibility for women’s organizations to petition on behalf of the claimant; the use of international law in a progressive and strategic manner; and the focus of remedies on preventive aspects. She concluded by recommending the dissemination of progressive judgements promoting the use of international law at national level. 34. Mr. Carranza structured his presentation around three types of challenges: conceptual, practical and ideological. He argued that making reparations transformative conceptually went beyond gender. He also pointed out the need to recognize the larger context of violence that affects women, not only the direct victims of this violence. In Nepal for instance, there were important issues at stake, including caste, class, ethnicity and other forms of discrimination, which are usually not dealt with in the reparations programmes, in addition to gender discrimination. In Sierra Leone, the original reparations proposed by the truth commission could not be implemented for lack of resources. 35. Mr. Carranza also emphasized some practical challenges, including the mapping and registration of victims and beneficiaries, their participation in designing the reparation programmes, and the financial resources needed for implementation of the reparation programme itself and its longer-term sustainability, citing the problem of Nepal, where implementation of reparations was dependent on donors. Regarding ideological challenges, Mr. Carranza affirmed that, if they were to be transformative, reparations should not be limited to civil and political rights. He stated that one should wonder about the goals of reparations and transitional justice (is it truth, justice or equality?). Reparations should strive to subvert gender hierarchies, the systemic marginalization of groups and structural inequalities. 36. In the discussion session that followed, questions were asked about good practices in reaching out to religious leaders; the responsibilities of the State and donors regarding funding for reparation programmes; and the direction taken by the International Criminal Court vis-à-vis reparations. The representative of Nepal affirmed his country’s commitment to address the issues stemming from the conflict via the two commissions on truth and reconciliation. The representative of Peru asked how to overcome obstacles regarding registration of victims and ascertainment of facts. The representative of Timor-Leste pointed to the uniqueness of the case of Timor-Leste, where most of the perpetrators of the 9