Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-Publications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG

76 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 12
States to make reparation, and refer to these five elements.
The regional women’s rights conventions also use the term
reparation. 197
It should be noted that the five forms of reparation are not
alternatives to one another. Rather an assessment must be
made as to which forms will be appropriate in a given case,
taken into account the desires and needs of the victim. 198
“Transformative reparation” for gender-based violence:
dealing with the root causes of violence
Various international human rights courts, authorities and legal
experts have noted that the principle of “restitution” (being
returned to one’s situation prior to violation or abuse, even
where this situation was in itself discriminatory and gave rise to
the gender-based violence) cannot by itself be an adequate
remedy for gender-based violence, as it does not deal with the
root causes of the violence and maintains discrimination. This
awareness has been translated into the concept of
“transformative reparation”, by which special measures must
be designed to remedy discrimination. These act as
“guarantees of non-repetition”.
In the case of González et al v Mexico, 199 the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights examined in detail a series of cases of
sexualized torture and murder of girls and young women.
International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of
Humanitarian Law. Reparation must be adequate, effective and
comprehensive… and the specificities and circumstances of each case
must be taken into consideration and redress should be tailored to the
particular needs of the victim and be proportionate in relation to the
gravity of the violations committed against them.”
197
Convention of Belém do Pará, above note 119, Article 7(g); Maputo
Protocol, above note 121, Article 4(2)(f); and Istanbul Convention,
above note 170, Article 5(2).
198
International Commission of Jurists, Practitioners Guide No 2,
above note 189, especially pages 27-28.
199
González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v Mexico, Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, Judgment of 16 November 2009 (Preliminary
Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs).