From left: Lina Sarmiento, Head of the Human Rights Victims' Claims Board– #Philippines; Mustapha Iznasni, Advisor to the president of National Council on Human Rights (CNDH) – #Morocco; Alba García Polanco, Victims Unit´s Director of Inter-institutional Management - #Colombia; Peter Van Der Auweraert, Head of IOM Land, Property and Reparations Division; Susana Cori, Executive Secretary of the National Reparations Council – #Peru.

By Peter Van der Auweraert

Decades of internal conflict in Colombia have seen millions become forcibly displaced and hundreds of thousands subjected to gruesome violations. In a move to deal with this painful past, the government of Colombia launched a comprehensive victims’ reparations program, established under the 2011 Victims and Land Restitution Law.

The program is the most ambitious undertaking of its kind, in both size and scope, with over seven million victims registered so far. To take stock of the first four years of implementation and to compare notes with other national reparations programs, the Victims’ unit with the support of IOM, USAID and the Colombian Presidential Agency for Development Cooperation organized the first International School of Reparations in Bogota.

The event, which took place from 4-6 May was attended by representatives from Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines and Rwanda and attracted over 200 participants from government agencies, civil society and the international community.  

There was great diversity of contexts within which the question of victims’ redress has emerged in the past decades. Clearly, the political and societal dynamics in a given transitional situation will, and should have a preponderant impact on how victims’ reparations is dealt with.

Presenters agreed that models cannot easily be transposed from one country to another. While not the sole determinant, the size of the victims’ population is one factor that shapes how states can and will operationalize the victims’ right to reparations. – From tens of thousands in Morocco and the Philippines to hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and millions in Colombia, victims redress can differ.

Nevertheless, the discussions revealed a set of macro-considerations that are relevant to any reparations effort, even if how they are approached will differ from situation to situation.

This post aims to highlight a few that do not always receive the attention they require.

Determining what theory of change underlines a reparations policy is one question that requires sufficient attention. There is need to be realistic about what a reparations program can and should achieve, what measures need to be adopted and, importantly, how those measures should be implemented to have the impact.

Enough time should be spent on figuring out how, concretely, a reparations policy can indeed contribute to reconciliation, establishing trust between victims and the state, restoring the dignity of victims, to name but a few.

In any society ravaged by violence and mass human rights violations, much will have been destroyed and in need of reconstruction and repair. This concerns material things such as livelihoods and private property, but also less tangible things such as human dignity, individual and collective identities, community relations, and a sense that a better future is possibly.

Individual victims have physical and psychological scars that require healing; state institutions will need to be reconstructed or reformed this means  needs and demands for change are are usually high.

What is not clear however is how to determine what issues are best addressed through a reparations policy and those best left to other policies. This question is particularly salient when structural issues are likely to hinder an adequate response.

For example, if the lack of capacity in the national health system is the main obstacle to providing psycho-social care to victims then it is not obvious that the inclusion of psycho-social support in a reparations program will make much difference for victims in the short- or the medium-term. This can raise expectations that might not be met.  

Similarly, foreseeing vocational training within reparations programs may not have much real-life impact when the scarcity of jobs is due to fundamental economic development causes that will take a long time to address.

Overloading reparations programs with addressing issues that are better addressed-in more effectively and efficiently – through another other policy can carry a cost for both victims and the broader society.

The multitude of issues and needs faced after periods of mass human rights violations means that, invariably, reparations programs are assailed with calls to do as much as possible.

Victims’ associations, government actors, the media and, indeed, the international community will all have their, sometimes competing demands, in efforts to ensure there’s redress.  The risk of a multiplication of objectives is always there, as is the inclusion of objectives that the reparations program has no chance of achieving. The ensuing dispersion of energy and resources is almost always detrimental to the actual deliver of reparations to victims.

Discussions at the South-South Exchange highlighted this danger which exists throughout the full life of a reparations program. Pragmatism, and a keen eye to distinguish what is ideal and what is attainable are indispensable, as is making painful choices that will not please everyone.

Finally, the “management of reparations” is important. . Redress does not happen through the declaration of principles, laws and policies alone, no matter how important they can be at the symbolical level.

Reparations “occur” as much through the day-to-day interactions between the victims and discussions among implementers as it is through the actual delivery of the services or benefits included in the program. Having the rights structures, staff and organizational cultural in place for the implementation of a reparations policy is as important as the actual content of that policy.

What transpired in the end is that, no matter the nature of the reparations program, strong management is indispensable to ensure that victims are served effectively, efficiently and in a manner that really meets their needs and expectations. Unless the management of reparations is, from the start, a central concern for policymakers and implementers alike, the good intentions behind the effort to repair may, in the end, have little or no effect on those that suffered so much.

----------------

Peter Van der Auweraert is the head of IOM’s Land, Property and Reparations Division
More information on the first International School on Reparations