A/HRC/14/22 American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women. This decision is seminal in that it is the first time that the Court has embraced the concept of gender-sensitive reparations with a transformative aspiration. The State of Mexico has been mandated to provide a variety of reparation measures to the victims, including monetary compensation, symbolic redress, and a wide set of future looking guarantees of non-repetition. Family members and closely affiliated persons of the deceased who can be considered as having been harmed and hence deserving of reparations (who in this case included all those who had self-identified as injured parties including the mothers, sisters-in-laws and nieces of the deceased) received reparations. 78. The Court’s sensitivity in capturing the systemic nature of the problem of violence against women is also reflected in its reparations approach. It recognized for the first time that in a situation of structural discrimination reparations should aim at transforming such situation, thus aspiring not only to restitution but also to correction. The Court spelled out the criteria to be applied for the assessment of reparations, which include the following: (i) reparations should have a direct connection with the violations found by the Court; (ii) they should repair in a proportional manner pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages; (iii) they cannot be a source of enrichment or impoverishment; (iv) restitution is an aim but without breaching the principle of non-discrimination; (v) reparations should be “oriented to identify and eliminate the structural factors of discrimination”; (vi) they should take into account a gender perspective; and (vii) take into account all the measures alleged by the State to have been taken to repair the harm. Rather than remaining open-ended and with a view to ensuring the implementation of the decision, Mexico was ordered to report to the Court on the implementation of these guarantees of non-repetition for a period of three years on an annual basis. The Court also distinguished between the concepts of reparations, humanitarian assistance and social services by addressing and rejecting the claim of Mexico, which attempted to deduct from the reparations granted any monetary and housing assistance already provided to the family members. (b) The European Court of Human Rights 79. The European Court’s case law has proven increasingly sensitive to the seriousness of violence against women, the importance of due diligence standards when it comes to framing State responsibility and the challenges surrounding evidence. The reparations framework traditionally embraced by the Court is rather narrow and has not allowed full recognition of the moral and material harm that women subjected to violence experience. No measures of satisfaction, symbolic recognition, rehabilitation or guarantees of nonrepetition have been granted and the treatment of pecuniary damages has been very narrow, as it requires high standards of proof and fails to include future expenses, even in cases where they are foreseeable. This approach does not reflect an understanding of either the true material harm following a violation, or its sex-specific dimension. 80. In the 2009 case of Opuz v. Turkey,14 the Court found Turkey in violation of its due diligence obligations to protect women from domestic violence and — for the first time — held that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination under the European Convention. The case was brought by Ms. Opuz who, along with her mother, suffered years of brutal violence at the hands of her husband. Despite their complaints, the police and prosecuting authorities did not adequately protect the women and, ultimately, Ms. Opuz’s mother was killed by the former husband. The Court found that there had been a violation of right to life with respect to the applicant’s mother, a violation of the prohibition of torture and of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the authorities’ failure to protect the 14 20 European Court of Human Rights, Opuz v. Turkey, 9 June 2009. GE.10-13109