A/HRC/42/45 93. In the case of Guatemala, of the approximately 200,000 victims, 74 only 32,802 have been compensated.75 94. In Sierra Leone, very few victims, including some victims of sexual violence, have received some reparation.76 Between 2008 and 2013, for example, the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund, the Government of Germany, the International Organization for Migration, the United Nations multi-partner trust fund and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) provided about $8.5 million to the National Commission for Social Action, the body responsible for victims’ reparation.77 In particular, some victims in Sierra Leone benefited from interim relief. For example, interim payments of $100 were granted, predominantly to amputees and victims of sexual violence, benefiting approximately 21,700 victims. A few victims benefited from urgent medical care.78 95. In such circumstances, identifying suitable sources of funding without diluting the responsibility of the State becomes crucial. In many contexts, State and non-State actors, including armed groups, are responsible for the atrocities and should contribute to reparation.79 Important precedents already exist in this direction. The German compensation programme for forced labour was half-financed by corporations. Similarly, the Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board in the Philippines, established to provide reparation to victims of the regime of Ferdinand Marcos, was financed from funds from Marcos’s wealth. 80 In Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC) agreed to contribute to reparation in the peace agreement signed with the Government of Colombia in 2016.81 96. The role of the international community in domestic reparation programmes must also be considered. If States acknowledge their responsibility for the violations, there is no reason for other States, international financial institutions or international organizations to abstain from helping to fund reparation programmes. 82 C. Selected challenges 97. The importance of the right to reparation cannot be stressed enough. If provided in a prompt, adequate and effective manner, it can make a substantial difference in the lives of victims. In most cases, however, victims do not receive reparation, or if they do, they obtain some form of reparation which does not fulfil those requirements. As a consequence, the harm caused to victims is accentuated. While underscoring the standard of full reparation, the Special Rapporteur notes below two specific challenges that require urgent attention: rehabilitation, and reparation for victims in a vulnerable situation, including victims of sexual violence. 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 See www.undp.org/content/dam/guatemala/docs/publications/UNDP_gt_PrevyRecu_ MemoriadelSilencio.pdf, para. 2. Programa Nacional de Resarcimiento, Cantidad de beneficiarios por tipo de violación (2005–2014). National Commission for Social Action, Sierra Leone Reparations Programme newsletter, October 2016. Eva Ottendörfer, The Fortunate Ones and the Ones Still Waiting: Reparations for War Victims in Sierra Leone, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt report No. 129 (2014), p. I. International Center for Transitional Justice, “Report and proposals for the implementation of reparations in Sierra Leone” (2009), pp. 7 and 10. Luke Moffett, “Beyond attribution: responsibility of armed non-State actors for reparations in Northern Ireland, Colombia and Uganda”, Noemi Gal-Or, Cedric Ryngaert and Math Noortmann (eds.), Responsibilities of the Non-State Actor in Armed Conflict and the Market Place: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings (Brill, 2015), pp. 323–346. Commission on Human Rights (Philippines), ��Experiences of domestic reparation programmes” (14 May 2018), para. 26. Peace agreement between the Government of Colombia and FARC, November 2016, points 5.1.3– 5.1.4. Guidance note of the Secretary-General, “Reparations for conflict-related sexual violence” (United Nations, June 2014), point 5; and A/69/518, para. 58. 15