A/HRC/42/45 although not necessarily at the same level or of the same kind”. 20 They should also be comprehensive, in terms of the types of violations that are selected for reparation, 21 and complex, in terms of the forms of reparation used to redress victims. 22 A programme should also be coherent internally, in the relationship between the different forms of reparation received by victims, and externally, in the relationship between these programmes and other transitional justice measures. 23 Domestic programmes should aim at finality, addressing the question of the potential coexistence of judicial reparation and domestic reparation programmes.24 Finally, munificence, which looks at how dignifying the benefits are, is also important.25 B. Lessons learned for effective domestic reparation programmes 46. Besides the legal and normative framework that could facilitate the design and implementation of domestic reparation programmes, their architecture is of crucial importance. 26 There is no single way to design such programmes. However, in practice, some have proven better than others. Setting up victims’ registries 47. Individual and collective registries of victims are crucial in order to have realistic projections of the level of victimhood in States undergoing transitions. Adequate registries also help in estimating the cost of redressing the potential beneficiaries of the programme and in planning resource allocation. Registries could also facilitate reparation for victims in urgent need of attention, through urgent reparation programmes. They also constitute a key measure of acknowledgment, satisfaction and memory. 48. Even if registries are created, the number of victims registered at any given point in time cannot be taken to be the whole universe of victims, as underregistration is a common challenge. It is important that registration processes include flexible time frames for registration, and that they truly reach out to all victims. 49. Experience indicates that registries are not always set up as part of domestic reparation programmes, which is regrettable. So are the cases, for example in Guatemala or Iraq, where despite tireless work by civil society to this end, the government has failed to establish them.27 In other cases, registries were set up after domestic reparation programmes had been designed and established, as in the case of Peru where the Unique Registry of Victims was created as part of the Comprehensive Reparations Plan. 50. In Argentina, for example, registration began with the registration of persons who had been disappeared and killed during the dictatorship, through the work of the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons. The Commission was crucial in facilitating later work identifying other victims. As a result, the Unified Registry of Victims of State Terrorism was established in 2013 within the Secretariat of Human Rights. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 8 Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparation Programmes (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.08.XIV.3), p. 15. Ibid., p. 19; and A/69/518, para. 26. A/69/518, para. 30. Pablo De Greiff (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 10–11. Ibid., p. 12; and Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparation Programmes, p. 35. Pablo De Greiff (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations, p. 12. Alexander Segovia, “The reparations proposals of the truth commissions in El Salvador and Haiti: a history of noncompliance”, in Pablo De Greiff (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations, pp. 154–176, at p. 157. Procurador de los Derechos Humanos (Guatemala), “Informe de monitoreo realizado a las sedes regionales del Programa Nacional de Resarcimiento” (May 2018), p. 3; and Clara Sandoval and Miriam Puttick, Reparations for the Victims of Conflict in Iraq: Lessons Learned from Comparative Practice (Ceasefire and Minority Rights Group International, 2017), p. 26.