A/HRC/14/24 (c) The extent to which DDR programmes contribute (or not) to accountability for serious human rights violations. I. Reparations for unlawful killings and amends for civilian harm 84. Human rights law, humanitarian law and the international law on State responsibility require that individuals should have an effective remedy when their rights are violated, and that the State must provide reparations for its own violations.39 States must ensure that victims’ families are able to enforce their right to compensation, through judicial remedies where necessary. In many cases, reparations can mean the difference between the destitution of innocents and their families, and their ability to rebuild their lives and livelihoods. 85. Yet there is a dearth of legal and factual research on the precise content of States’ legal obligations and how those obligations are, or should be, implemented in practice, as well as on emerging State practice relating to amends for lawful harm to civilians during conflict. 86. During visits to countries experiencing armed conflict or other large-scale violence, I have found that States rarely complied with their reparations obligations,40 although some States, such as the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have made commendable efforts.41 Those efforts include monetary payments to the families of those killed even in lawful attacks. Such payments – unlike formal reparations – are offered without legal implication and as a gesture of condolence and respect. The Government of the United States also makes amends by providing livelihood assistance programmes to individuals (e.g. skills training to enable widows to make a living) or communities (e.g. to repair damage caused by military operations). Most countries with combat troops in Afghanistan now offer monetary payments for lawful civilian harm, but programme implementation suffers from flaws, including a lack of common funding among International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners, inconsistency due to an overreliance on commander discretion and different troop-contributing country rules and practices, lack of access for civilians seeking payments, lack of a formal ISAF programme, and a lack of transparency. Some other States have also announced amends programmes in different contexts. In March 2010, Yemen promised payments to civilians killed in counterterrorism operations. These examples illustrate an expanding practice which is not yet being systematically tracked or instituted by the international community. 87. Legal and factual research on extrajudicial killings and reparations in the context of armed conflict could: (a) Clarify the forms and amounts that reparations currently take; (b) Promote best practices in the form and amounts of reparations; (c) Assess how best to facilitate victims’ and family members’ access to reparations; (d) 39 40 41 22 Study how to promote consistency in amounts paid; Human Rights Committee, general comment 31 (2004), para. 16; J-M. Henckaerts & L. DoswaldBeck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2005), Rule 150; and Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-Sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, para. 76. E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5, para. 75; A/HRC/8/3/Add.3, para. 63; and A//HRC/11/2/Add.6, paras. 81-82. A/HRC/11/2/Add.4, paras. 37 and A/HRC/11/2/Add.5, paras. 67-68.