A/HRC/42/45 27. In many countries, victims are stigmatized and are perceived as “taking advantage” of the situation, rather than as individuals who have suffered serious harm and are entitled to reparation. 28. Furthermore, States often act as if reparation were a policy choice, instead of the fulfilment of an obligation owed to victims as a result of an unlawful breach of international and domestic law. 29. The Special Rapporteur would like to note the importance of the right to reparation for victims of mass atrocities. As an entitlement, it serves a fundamental purpose of responding to the harm suffered by victims through the provision of direct benefits that go beyond compensation, and include restitution (if possible), satisfaction, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-recurrence. The right to reparation is also important as a guarantee of non-recurrence, as it helps perpetrators to understand that what they did was wrong and that societies must undertake to dignify the victims. It will also allow victims to gain trust in the State, to be acknowledged as rights holders, and, potentially, to be empowered. This will, in turn, provide benefits to society. 30. For the right to reparation to be fulfilled, it is essential that the State and any other actors involved in the violations acknowledge their responsibility. IV. Domestic reparation programmes 31. Reparation programmes are aimed at realizing the human right of victims to an adequate and effective remedy. They are administrative processes set up by States aiming to deal with a large universe of victims, and they identify who can claim to be a victim and what violations are to be redressed, and establish reparation measures (benefits) for the harm suffered. 4 They are aimed at ensuring that victims are treated equally and in a consistent manner, as victims who have suffered the same type of violation would benefit from the same forms of reparation. 32. Domestic reparation programmes are the most effective tool for victims of gross human rights violations and serious violations of humanitarian law to receive reparation. Without them, victims would have to prove their status in a court of law, including by providing all the necessary evidence, pay the expensive costs of litigation, and wait several years before their claim is, if at all, successful. 5 33. Such programmes have been used in various parts of the world. They have dealt with atrocities committed during repression, as in Argentina, Chile, Iraq or Morocco, or during conflict, as in Bosnia Herzegovina, Colombia, Guatemala, Iraq or Sierra Leone. Other reparation programmes (not really domestic in nature) have been set up to deal with the harm caused as a result of conflict situations or occupation, such as the United Nations Compensation Commission set up by the Security Council to deal with reparations to victims of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. 34. Domestic programmes could be adequate and effective remedies to provide reparation to victims of mass atrocities, but they face enormous challenges. Institutionally, they are fragile and weak, and depend on the political context of the country, the political will of the relevant authorities, the availability of resources, and practical and institutional concerns about how best to provide and implement reparation. 35. The challenges are even greater in countries emerging from or still in the midst of conflict. In such situations, setting up domestic reparation programmes implies dealing with a significantly bigger pool of victims. If, during repressive regimes, victims represent about 1 per cent of the population, after conflicts there can be at least twice that number of 4 5 Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparation Programmes (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.08.XIV.3), pp. 9–10. A/69/518, para. 4. 5