A/HRC/42/45 41. They further indicate that “victims and other sectors of civil society should play a meaningful role in the design and implementation of such programmes”, and that victims, particularly women and minorities, should be consulted and participate in such processes. 14 There is a dearth of significant practice to shed light on how best to carry out such participation and consultation.15 42. International tribunals such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have crafted significant jurisprudence on reparation for victims of mass atrocities through the adjudication of individual cases.16 In that context, the Court has indicated that victims should get full and adequate reparation for the harm suffered, which includes “the need to grant different measures of reparation, in order to redress the damage fully; thus in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of satisfaction, restitution and rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance owing to the severity of the effects and the collective nature of the damage suffered”.17 43. The Court has also identified some criteria that domestic reparation programmes must fulfil to be in accordance with international law and with its own jurisprudence. 18 Such criteria include consultation with and participation of victims, reasonable and proportional compensation awards, reasons given for providing reparations by family group and not individually, distribution criteria among members of the family, and gender approaches to reparation.19 44. While international law is yet to fully settle the question about the reach and scope of the right to reparation of victims of mass atrocities through domestic reparation programmes, the Special Rapporteur would like to note some minimum requirements that such programmes ought to fulfil: (a) Domestic reparation programmes are remedies to redress victims of mass atrocities; they must be adequate, prompt and effective; (b) They should be designed, implemented and monitored through processes that include consultation with and the participation of victims, particularly those in the most vulnerable situations, such as women, members of minority groups, victims of sexual violence, displaced persons and persons with disabilities; (c) They should provide victims with different forms of reparation and not only with compensation; (d) Their adequacy and effectiveness also depend on to the way in which they relate to other pillars of transitional justice, including justice, truth, and guarantees of nonrecurrence; (e) Compensation, including the distribution criteria across victims, families and those in the most vulnerable situations, should be reasonable and proportional. 45. This approach is in harmony with more conceptual analyses about the adequacy of the institutional design of domestic reparation programmes. Under that analysis, domestic programmes must be complete, whereby “every victim actually receives the benefits, 14 15 16 17 18 19 See E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, principle 32. A/69/518, paras. 74–80. The European Court of Human Rights also has important precedents on guarantees of non-recurrence, otherwise called general measures. See, for example, Broniowski v. Poland (application No. 31443/96), judgment of 22 June 2004, para. 193; and Aslakhanova and others v. Russia, (applications Nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08, 42509/10), judgment of 18 December 2012, paras. 212– 240. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador, judgment of 25 October 2012 (merits, reparations and costs), para. 305. Clara Sandoval, “Two steps forward, one step back: reflections on the jurisprudential turn of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on domestic reparation programmes”, The International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 22, No. 9 (2017), pp. 1192–1208. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Afro-Descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, judgment of 20 November 2013 (preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs), para. 470. 7