A/HRC/14/24 (e) Assess what measures (such as repairing facilities or providing training) best address different kinds of losses; (f) Assess how States should provide reparations for losses caused by their private security contractors; (g) Study how States should best ensure transparency (consistent with individuals’ privacy and security needs) about payments; (h) 88. Clarify the relationship between reparations and amends. Comparable research on amends could: (a) Document existing State practice, including in relation to civilian deaths, injuries and property damage through lawful acts; (b) Promote best practices in terms of the form and amounts of amends such as monetary payments, livelihood assistance, community aid and rebuilding, and psychosocial efforts; (c) Assess how best to facilitate victims’ and family members’ access to amends; (d) Study how to ensure consistency and/or appropriate cultural context in amounts paid; (e) Assess how parties to a conflict can ensure amends for losses caused by lawful conduct of their private security contractors. 89. Outside the context of armed conflict, research is also needed on the practices of States in providing effective remedies for violations of the right to life. What obstacles do families experience when attempting to enforce their right to a remedy? What statute of limitations (if any) commonly apply where a victim has been killed? How can States best ensure that unlawful killings are fairly compensated? Where the State is responsible for killings on a large scale, what systems or programmes can best provide and distribute reparations? V. Conclusion 90. Since this report consists largely of recommendations, and given space constraints, I will not repeat the many recommendations here. 91. In terms of a conclusion, a paradox emerges from the preceding review of the mandate’s impact. In formal terms, the Council itself only rarely takes any specific action, even when very serious violations of the prohibition of extrajudicial executions are apparent. Nor does it generally debate the details of country visit reports or troubling communications exchanges. And there is immense reluctance to respond to the persistent failure of certain States to agree to visit requests over a long-period of years. In terms of real impact, however, it is clear that the broad range of activities undertaken by the mandate pursuant to the Council’s authorization have mattered a great deal. Lives have been saved, lethal practices have been abandoned, greater caution has been shown, and awareness of the issues has grown at all levels. It is clear, nevertheless, that if the Council has the political will it can do vastly more to prevent unlawful killings around the world and to put in place much more effective mechanisms for accountability when atrocities do occur. 23