A/HRC/20/14 States’ responsibility to provide reparation to victims of terrorism D. 49. The principle of State responsibility is at the core of the right to reparation. As long ago as 1927, the Permanent Court of International Justice affirmed that any act or omission by a public official, qualifying as an unlawful act under public international law, gives rise to international responsibility, and imposes on the State a corresponding international law duty of reparation.83 50. The emergence of human rights in international law altered the traditional concept of State responsibility. International human rights law regulates relations between States and the human beings under their jurisdiction, making individuals the subject of international law, and direct beneficiaries of legally enforceable human rights. The official commentaries on the articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001, note that in relation to a breach of a human rights treaty, the individual should be regarded as the ultimate beneficiary of the relevant rights. 84 This obligation, which exists as a matter of public international law, is reflected in specific “just satisfaction” provisions of the principal international and regional human rights treaties. 51. The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law states that full and effective reparation should include, as appropriate, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.85 • Restitution consists of measures re-establishing the situation of the victim prior to the violation. Restitution of the status quo ante is, however, rarely possible in the present context, since acts of terrorism, by their very nature, often have irreversible consequences. • Compensation, or indemnity, is a specific form of reparation providing just satisfaction (monetary awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss resulting from the violation, together with costs for legal and other expenses reasonably incurred). • Measures of rehabilitation include medical and psychological care, as well as other social services. Acts of terrorism leave deep scars on the survivors as well as the relatives of those who have died, eyewitnesses and members of the intervening rescue services. • Satisfaction is a non-financial form of reparation that includes, inter alia, full and public verification of the facts, and formal acceptance of any State responsibility. Satisfaction can play an important role in achieving reparation in those cases where public officials have caused or contributed to a death through culpable acts or omissions. • Guarantees of non-repetition or non-recurrence include the investigative obligation to take all reasonable steps to identify system failures and human errors, and the obligation to reform laws and administrative practices that may have caused or contributed to the opportunity for an act of terrorism to be committed. 83 84 85 See Permanent Court of International Justice, Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), 26 July 1927, p. 21. A/56/10, chap. IV, sect. E, subsect. 1. General Assembly resolution.60/147, annex, paras. 18-23; see also IACtHR, Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru, judgement of 27 November 1998, para. 85. 15