GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparations Programmes

Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparations Programmes

Library
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
2008

Summary

How can effective reparations programmes be conducted? What role should the international community play? This publication, by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), offers a practical guide for reparations programmes. It is important to clarify legal obligations and the moral reasons for reparations, to address the political concerns and to be aware of cultural issues. International actors should rethink their reluctance to provide financial support to reparations efforts.

In the past, international law considered that wrongs committed by a state against its own nationals were essentially a domestic matter. Since the emergence of the concept of human rights, there is recognition that a consistent pattern of violations warrants international involvement. This has solidified the legal basis of a right to a remedy and reparation for victims of human rights violations. Reparations can be subdivided into five categories: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Reparations programmes are meant to redress gross and systematic human rights violations, not sporadic or exceptional ones.

It is important to pay attention to some general characteristics of the contexts in which reparations typically take place. Weak institutional capacity, fractured social relations, very low levels of trust and a scarcity of financial resources frequently characterise such contexts. Recent reparations programmes have generally stemmed from truth commissions established after emergence from authoritarianism or conflict.

All reparations programmes aim to ensure that every victim receives benefits. This ‘completeness’ can be hampered by a lack of information about the victims, limited victim participation, poor publicity, limited accessibility and excessively high evidentiary thresholds. Further challenges faced by reparations programmes include the following:

  • Reparations programmes must decide on a definition of victims and which violations are eligible for reparations.
  • Setting the level of monetary compensation, and deciding how it is distributed are often the most challenging aspects of reparations programmes.
  • Low socio-economic development and a large universe of potential beneficiaries constrain a government’s ability to implement a reparations plan. Establishing a reparations programme requires the mobilisation of significant public resources, which involves a political struggle.
  • Linking reparations programmes to other justice measures and to civil litigation, and making them gender sensitive are also important challenges.
  • The violations that reparations benefits are meant to redress are frequently of the sort that is, strictly speaking, irreparable.
  • There is much less familiarity among NGOs with reparations than with other redress mechanisms, especially criminal justice.

International actors should consider providing financial support to reparations efforts, particularly in those cases in which they themselves played an important role in the conflict. They could provide technical assistance in the design and implementation of reparations programmes and support local groups involved in reparations discussions. Further actions could be to:

  • Pressure multilateral institutions into fostering conditions under which post-conflict economies can afford to pay due attention to the victims of conflict
  • Promote linkages between the reparations programme and a comprehensive transitional justice policy
  • Make international support for reintegration plans for ex-combatants conditional on comparable local commitment to reparations for victims.

Source

OHCHR, 2008, 'Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparations Programmes', Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, New York and Geneva

Related Content

Key Drivers of Modern Slavery
Helpdesk Report
2020
Transitional justice
Topic Guide
2016
Responding to mass atrocities and human rights abuses
E-Learning
2015
Refugee, IDP and host community radicalisation
Helpdesk Report
2014

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".