Practice Relating to Rule 150. Reparation

Note: For practice concerning the investigation of enforced disappearances, see Rule 98.
Paris Agreement on Reparation from Germany
The 1946 Paris Agreement on Reparation from Germany was concluded
in order to obtain an equitable distribution among [the signatory governments] of the total assets which … are or may be declared to be available as reparation from Germany … in order to establish an Inter-Allied Reparation Agency, and to settle an equitable procedure for the restitution of monetary gold. 
Agreement on Reparation from Germany, on the Establishment of an Inter-Allied Reparation Agency and on the Restitution of Monetary Gold, concluded between Albania, the United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Greece, India, Luxembourg, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Union of South Africa and Yugoslavia, Paris, 14 January 1946.
Paris Agreement on Reparation from Germany
The single Article of Part III of the 1946 Paris Agreement on Reparation from Germany, entitled “Restitution of monetary gold”, provides:
A. All the monetary gold found in Germany by the Allied Forces … shall be pooled for distribution as restitution among the countries participating in the pool in proportion to their respective losses of gold through looting or by wrongful removal to Germany.
B. Without prejudice to claims by way of reparation for unrestored gold, the portion of monetary gold thus accruing to each country participating in the pool shall be accepted by that country in full satisfaction of all claims against Germany for restitution of monetary gold.
C. A proportional share of the gold shall be allocated to each country concerned which adheres to this arrangement for the restitution of monetary gold and which can establish that a definite amount of monetary gold belonging to it was looted by Germany or, at any time after 12 March 1938, was wrongfully removed into German territory. 
Agreement on Reparation from Germany, on the Establishment of an Inter-Allied Reparation Agency and on the Restitution of Monetary Gold, concluded between Albania, the United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Greece, India, Luxembourg, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Union of South Africa and Yugoslavia, Paris, 14 January 1946, Part III.
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 41 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights provides:
If the [European Court of Human Rights] finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the [European Court of Human Rights] shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party. 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4 November 1950, as amended by Protocol No. 11, Strasbourg, 11 May 1994, Article 41.
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation
Article 2 of Chapter Three (“Internal Restitution”) of the 1952 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation provides:
The Federal Republic [of Germany] hereby acknowledges the need for, and assumes the obligation to implement fully and by every means in its power, the legislation … and the programmes for restitution and re-allocation thereunder provided. The Federal Republic shall entrust a Federal Agency with ensuring the fulfilment of the obligation undertaken under this Article, paying due regard to the provisions of the [German] Basic Law. 
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (with Annex), Bonn, 26 May 1952, also known as the Transference Treaty, as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 October 1954, Chapter Three, Article 2.
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation
Article 4 of Chapter Three (“Internal Restitution”) of the 1952 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation provides:
1. The Federal Republic [of Germany] hereby undertakes
(a) … to ensure the payment to restitutees of all judgments or awards which have been or hereafter shall be given or made against the former German Reich …
(b) to assume forthwith, by appropriate arrangements with the City of Berlin, liability for the payment … of all judgments and awards against the former German Reich under the internal restitution legislation in the Western Sector of Berlin.
3. The obligation of the Federal Republic to the Three Powers with respect to money judgments and awards under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be satisfied when such judgments and awards shall have been paid or shall, if the Federal Republic so requests, be considered to have been satisfied when the Federal Republic shall have paid a total of DM 1,500,000,000 thereon. 
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (with Annex), Bonn, 26 May 1952, also known as the Transference Treaty, as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 October 1954, Chapter Three, Article 4.
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation
By Article 6 of Chapter Three (“Internal Restitution”) of the 1952 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation, a “Supreme Restitution Court” was established. 
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (with Annex), Bonn, 26 May 1952, also known as the Transference Treaty, as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 October 1954, Chapter Three, Article 6.
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation
Article 1, first paragraph, of Chapter Five (“External Restitution”) of the 1952 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation provides:
Upon the entry into force of the present Convention, the Federal Republic [of Germany] shall establish, staff and equip an administrative agency which shall … search for, recover, and restitute jewellery, silverware and antique furniture … and cultural property, if such articles or cultural property were, during the occupation of any territory, removed therefrom by the forces or authorities of Germany or its Allies or their individual members (whether or not pursuant to orders) after acquisition by duress (with or without violence), by larceny, by requisitioning or by other forms of dispossession by force. 
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (with Annex), Bonn, 26 May 1952, also known as the Transference Treaty, as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 October 1954, Chapter Three, Article 1, para. 1.
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation
Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of Chapter Five (“External Restitution”) of the 1952 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation provides:
Notwithstanding provisions of German law to the contrary, any person who, or whose predecessor in title, during the occupation of a territory, has been dispossessed of his property by larceny or by duress (with or without violence) by the forces or authorities of Germany or its Allies, or their individual members (whether or not pursuant to orders), shall have a claim against the present possessor of such property for its restitution.  
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (with Annex), Bonn, 26 May 1952, also known as the Transference Treaty, as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 October 1954, Chapter Five, Article 3, para. 1.
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation
Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of Chapter Six (“Reparation”) of the 1952 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation provides:
The Federal Republic [of Germany] shall in the future raise no objections against the measures which have been, or will be, carried out with regard to German external assets or other property, seized for the purpose of … restitution. 
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (with Annex), Bonn, 26 May 1952, also known as the Transference Treaty, as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 October 1954, Chapter Six, Article 3, para. 1.
Hague Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property
Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the 1954 Hague Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property provide:
1. Each High Contracting Party undertakes to prevent the exportation, from a territory occupied by it during an armed conflict, of cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the [1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property].
3. Each High Contracting Party undertakes to return, at the close of hostilities, to the competent authorities of the territory previously occupied, cultural property which is in its territory, if such property has been exported in contravention of the principle laid down in the first paragraph. Such property shall never be retained as war reparations.
4. The High Contracting Party whose obligation it was to prevent the exportation of cultural property from the territory occupied by it, shall pay an indemnity to the holders in good faith of any cultural property which has to be returned in accordance with the preceding paragraph. 
Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, §§ 1, 3 and 4.
Austrian State Treaty
Article 26 of the 1955 Austrian State Treaty, which in its preamble considers that “on 13 March 1938, Hitlerite Germany annexed Austria by force and incorporated its territory in the German Reich”, states:
1. In so far as such action has not already been taken, Austria undertakes that, in all cases where property, legal rights or interests in Austria have since 13 March 1938, been subject of forced transfer or measures of sequestration, confiscation or control on account of the racial origin or religion of the owner, the said property shall be returned and the said legal rights and interests shall be restored together with their accessories …
2. Austria agrees to take under its control all property, legal rights and interests in Austria of persons, organizations or communities which, individually or as members of groups, were the object of racial, religious or other Nazi measures of persecution where, in the case of persons, such property, rights and interests remain heirless or unclaimed for six months after the coming into force of the present Treaty, or where in the case of organizations and communities such organizations or communities have ceased to exist. Austria shall transfer such property, rights and interests to appropriate agencies or organizations to be designated by the Four Heads of Mission in Vienna by agreement with the Austrian Government to be used for the relief and rehabilitation of victims of persecution by the Axis Powers. 
State Treaty for the Re-establishment of an Independent and Democratic Austria (with Annexes and Maps), concluded between France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Austria, accession of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland and Yugoslavia, Vienna, 15 May 1955, Article 26.
Part IV (“Claims arising out of the War”, Articles 21–24) and Part V (“Property, Rights and Interests”, Articles 25–28) provide for more detailed and comprehensive settlement of all property claims on a State-to-State level. 
State Treaty for the Re-establishment of an Independent and Democratic Austria (with Annexes and Maps), concluded between France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Austria, accession of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland and Yugoslavia, Vienna, 15 May 1955, Part IV, Articles 21–24, and Part V, Articles 25–28.
American Convention on Human Rights
Article 63(1) of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights provides:
If the [Inter-American Court of Human Rights] finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall … also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, 22 November 1969, also known as Pact of San José, Article 63(1).
Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords
Article 1(1) of the 1995 Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords provides: “All refugees and displaced persons … shall have the right to have restored to them property of which they were deprived in the course of hostilities since 1991 and to be compensated for any property that cannot be restored to them.” 
General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Annex 7, Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons, signed by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska, Dayton, 22 November 1995, Article 1(1).
Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords
By Article VII of the 1995 Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords, the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina was established. According to Article XI, the mandate of the Commission was to
receive and decide any claims for real property in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the property has not voluntarily been sold or otherwise transferred since April 1, 1992, and where the claimant does not now enjoy possession of that property. Claims may be for return of the property or for just compensation in lieu of return. 
General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Annex 7, Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons, signed by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska, Dayton, 22 November 1995, Articles VII and IX.
ICC Statute
Article 75(1) of the 1998 ICC Statute provides: “The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution … and rehabilitation.” 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 75(1).
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Article 27(1) of the 2003 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides: “If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, signed at Ouagadougou on 10 June 1998, Article 27(1).
Luxembourg Agreement between Germany and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims
Protocol No. 1 of the 1952 Luxembourg Agreement between Germany and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims, concluded at a meeting between the representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims at which “the extension of the legislation existing in the Federal Republic of Germany for the redress of National-Socialist wrongs” was discussed and at which the representatives of both parties “agreed on a number of principles for the improvement of the existing legislation as well as on other measures”, states:
II. Restitution
1. The legislation now in force in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning restitution of identifiable property to victims of National-Socialist persecution shall remain in force without any restrictions …
2. The Federal Government will see to it that the Federal Republic of Germany accepts liability also for confiscation of household effects in transit which were seized by the German Reich in European ports outside of the Federal Republic, in so far as the household effects belonged to persecutees who emigrated from the territory of the Federal Republic.
3. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany will see to it that payments shall be ensured to restitutees – private persons and successor organizations appointed pursuant to law – of all judgments or awards which have been or hereafter shall be given or made against the former German Reich under restitution legislation. The same shall apply to amicable settlements …
In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 3 of Chapter Three of the Convention on the Settlement of Matters arising out of the War and the Occupation, the obligation of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be considered to have been satisfied when the judgments and awards shall have been paid or when the Federal Republic of Germany shall have paid a total of DM 1,500 million. Payments on the basis of amicable settlements shall be included in this sum. 
Agreement consisting of Protocol No. 1 drawn up by the Representatives of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany; and Protocol No. 2 drawn up by the Representatives of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, Protocol No. 1, § II(1)–(3).
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 2(3) of Part III of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines states that the right of the victims and their families to seek justice for violations of human rights includes “adequate compensation or indemnification, restitution and rehabilitation”. 
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague, 16 March 1998, Part III, Article 2(3).
UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/23
In 1999, Section 2 of UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/23 established the Housing and Property Claims Commission in Kosovo. 
UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/23 on the Establishment of the Housing and Property Claims Directorate and the Housing and Property Claims Commission, 15 November 1999, Section 2.
UNMIK Regulation No. 2000/60
According to Section 2 of UNMIK Regulation No. 2000/60, the Housing and Property Claims Commission in Kosovo is given the power to decide on claims for restitution, repossession and return to the property brought by certain categories of persons, among which persons who lost their property right as a result of discrimination and refugees or displaced persons. 
UNMIK Regulation No. 2000/60 on Residential Property Claims and The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Housing and Property Directorate and the Housing and Property Claims Commission, 31 October 2000, Section 2.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 21 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides:
In accordance with their domestic law and international obligations, and taking account of individual circumstances, States should provide victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law the following forms of reparation: restitution, … rehabilitation, and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 21.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 22 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides:
Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the violations of international human rights or humanitarian law occurred. Restitution includes: restoration of liberty, legal rights, social status, family life and citizenship; return to one’s place of residence; and restoration of employment and return of property. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 22.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 25 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides:
Satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition should include, where applicable, any or all of the following:
(a) Cessation of continuing violations;
(b) Verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth to the extent that such disclosure does not cause further unnecessary harm or threaten the safety of the victim, witnesses, or others;
(c) The search for the bodies of those killed or disappeared and assistance in the identification and reburial of the bodies in accordance with the cultural practices of the families and communities;
(d) An official declaration or a judicial decision restoring the dignity, reputation and legal and social rights of the victim and of persons closely connected with the victim;
(e) Apology, including public acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility;
(f) Judicial or administrative sanctions against persons responsible for the violations;
(g) Commemorations and tributes to the victims;
(h) Inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred in international human rights and humanitarian law training and in educational material at all levels;
(i) Preventing the recurrence of violations. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 25.
ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility
Article 34 of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, dealing with “Forms of reparation”, provides: “Full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.” 
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, Article 34.
ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility
Article 35 of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, entitled “Restitution”, provides:
A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to make restitution, that is, to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided and to the extent that restitution:
a) Is not materially impossible;
b) Does not involve a burden out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation. 
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, Article 35.
ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility
Article 37 of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, entitled “Satisfaction”, provides:
1. The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to give satisfaction for the injury caused by that act insofar as it cannot be made good by restitution or compensation.
2. Satisfaction may consist in an acknowledgement of the breach, an expression of regret, a formal apology or another appropriate modality.
3. Satisfaction shall not be out of proportion to the injury and may not take a form humiliating to the responsible State.  
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, Article 37.
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire
The 2003 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire provides:
The government of national reconciliation shall commit itself to facilitating humanitarian operations in favour of all the victims of the conflict throughout the national territory.
On the basis of the report of the national human rights commission, it will take measures to indemnify and rehabilitate the victims. 
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire, Round table of the Ivorian political forces, meeting at Linas-Marcoussis from 15 to 23 January 2003 and bringing together the following parties: FPI (Front Populaire Ivoirien), MFA (Mouvement des Forces d’Avenir), MJP (Mouvement pour la Justice et la Paix), MPCI (Mouvement Patriotique de Côte d’Ivoire), MPIGO (Mouvement Populaire Ivoirien du Grand Ouest), PDCI-RDA (Parti Démocratique de la Côte d’Ivoire-Rassemblement Démocratique Africain), PIT (Parti Ivoirien des Travailleurs), RDR (Rassemblement des Républicains), UDCY (Union Démocratique et Citoyenne), UDPCI (Union pour la Démocratie et la Paix en Côte d’Ivoire), Linas-Marcoussis, 24 January 2003, Annex, paragraph VI. 4.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraphs 18 to 23 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law state:
18. In accordance with domestic law and international law, and taking account of individual circumstances, victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law should, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case, be provided with full and effective reparation, as laid out in principles 19 to 23, which include the following forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.
19. Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate: restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return to one’s place of residence, restoration of employment and return of property.
[20. Compensation…] [see under Section B above]
21. Rehabilitation should include medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.
22. Satisfaction should include, where applicable, any or all of the following:
(a) Effective measures aimed at the cessation of continuing violations;
(b) Verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth to the extent that such disclosure does not cause further harm or threaten the safety and interests of the victim, the victim’s relatives, witnesses, or persons who have intervened to assist the victim or prevent the occurrence of further violations;
(c) The search for the whereabouts of the disappeared, for the identities of the children abducted, and for the bodies of those killed, and assistance in the recovery, identification and reburial of the bodies in accordance with the expressed or presumed wish of the victims, or the cultural practices of the families and communities;
(d) An official declaration or a judicial decision restoring the dignity, the reputation and the rights of the victim and of persons closely connected with the victim;
(e) Public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility;
(f) Judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations;
(g) Commemorations and tributes to the victims;
(h) Inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred in international human rights law and international humanitarian law training and in educational material at all levels.
23. Guarantees of non-repetition should include, where applicable, any or all of the following measures, which will also contribute to prevention:
(a) Ensuring effective civilian control of military and security forces;
(b) Ensuring that all civilian and military proceedings abide by international standards of due process, fairness and impartiality;
(c) Strengthening the independence of the judiciary;
(d) Protecting persons in the legal, medical and health-care professions, the media and other related professions, and human rights defenders;
(e) Providing, on a priority and continued basis, human rights and international humanitarian law education to all sectors of society and training for law enforcement officials as well as military and security forces;
(f) Promoting the observance of codes of conduct and ethical norms, in particular international standards, by public servants, including law enforcement, correctional, media, medical, psychological, social service and military personnel, as well as by economic enterprises;
(g) Promoting mechanisms for preventing and monitoring social conflicts and their resolution;
(h) Reviewing and reforming laws contributing to or allowing gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, §§ 18–23.
[emphasis in original]
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “Civilian property requisitioned for military purposes must be handed back to the parties concerned at the end of the hostilities.” 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 94.
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992), in a section entitled “Measures required after a conflict”, requires the restoration of “normal conditions” and provides for the “return [of] … objects” and the “return [of] cultural objects”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 38.
In a section entitled “After combat”, the manual repeats the instruction to “restore normal conditions” and provides for the “return of civilian … objects” and the “restitution of requisitioned objects”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 80.
Philippines
The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines states that in the case of damage to private property in the course of legitimate security or police operations, “measures shall be undertaken whenever practicable … to repair the damage caused”. 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2(a.4).
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956), under the heading “Remedies of Injured Belligerent”, provides:
In the event of [a] violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of the following types:
a) Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.
b) Protest … and/or punishment of the individual offenders. Such communications may be sent through the protecting power, a humanitarian organization performing the duties of a protecting power, or a neutral state, or by parlementaire direct to the commander of the offending forces …
c) Solicitation of the good offices, mediation, or intervention of neutral States for the purpose of making the enemy observe the law of war.
d) Punishment of captured offenders as war criminals. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 495.
Austria
In 2001, Austria adopted the General Settlement Fund Law (which was later amended) which provides: “An Arbitration Panel for the examination of applications for in rem restitution of publicly-owned property shall be established with the fund.” 
Austria, General Settlement Fund Law, 2001, as amended, Article 1(23)(1).
The Law further provides:
(1) Persons and associations who/which were persecuted by the National Socialist regime on political grounds, on grounds of origin, religion, sexual orientation, or of physical or mental handicap, or of accusations of so-called asociality, or who left the country to escape such persecution, and who suffered losses or damages as a result of or in connection with events having occurred on the territory of the present-day Republic of Austria during the National Socialist era shall be eligible to file an application.
(2) In addition … heirs of eligible claimants as defined in Paragraph 1 shall also be eligible to file an application. In case of a defunct association, an association which the Arbitration Panel regards as the legal successor shall be entitled to file an application as well. 
Austria, General Settlement Fund Law, 2001, as amended, Article 1(27).
As to restitutable publicly-owned property, the Law provides:
(1) For the purposes of in rem restitution, the notion of “publicly-owned property” shall cover … real estate (land) and buildings (superstructures) …
(2) For the purposes of in rem restitution to Jewish communal organizations, the notion “publicly-owned property” shall furthermore cover tangible movable property, particularly cultural and religious items. 
Austria, General Settlement Fund Law, 2001, as amended, Article 1(28).
Germany
Since the end of the Second World War, Germany has adopted several laws related to reparation and restitution for victims of the war and the holocaust, for example the Federal Restitution Law (1957), as amended. 
Germany, Federal Restitution Law, 1957, as amended.
Peru
Peru’s Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan (2005) states:
The Comprehensive Reparations Plan comprises the following programmes: a) Programme on the Restitution of Citizens’ Rights. b) Programme of Reparations dealing with Education. c) Programme of Reparations dealing with Health. d) Collective Reparations Programme. e) Symbolic Reparations Programme. f) Programme for the Promotion and Facilitation of Access to Housing. g) Other programmes to be approved by the Multi-Sectoral Commission. 
Peru, Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan, 2005, Article 2.
The Law also states:
The purpose of the present law is to create the legal framework for the Comprehensive Reparations Plan – CRP for victims of the violence that took place between May 1980 and November 2000 in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 
Peru, Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan, 2005, Article 1.
Peru
Peru’s Regulations to the Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan (2006) states:
The Comprehensive Reparations Plan … has the following objectives:
b) To take measures for the restitution and full exercise of the civil rights of victims of the process of violence.
c) To contribute to the recovery of conditions, capacities and opportunities for personal development lost by victims as a consequence of the process of violence. 
Peru, Regulations to the Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan, 2006, Article 6(b)–(c).
The Regulations also states: “The objective of the Collective Reparations Programme is to contribute to the reconstruction of the social, institutional, material and productive capital of families and rural and urban communities affected by the process of violence.” 
Peru, Regulations to the Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan, 2006, Article 25.
The Regulations further states:
The objective of the Symbolic Reparations Programme is to contribute to the restoration of social ties that were broken by the process of violence between the State and its citizens and amongst citizens by publicly acknowledging the damage caused by the actions of subversive groups and by the acts or omissions of the State with a view to supporting national reconciliation. 
Peru, Regulations to the Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan, 2006, Article 30.
The Regulations also state:
The following constitute forms of symbolic reparation under the Symbolic Reparations programme:
a) Public gestures, including apologies to the country by State officials; letters to victims or their relatives; public events to publicize the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Report.
b) Acts of acknowledgment, including acknowledging all victims of the process of violence; the innocent who were imprisoned, social leaders and civilian authorities, members of the Armed Forces, National Police and local governments, members of the Self-Defence Committees, organizations of people affected by the process of violence and organizations committed to the defence of human rights and communities.
c) Acts promoting reconciliation such as changing the symbols associated with the violence in the affected territories and changing the meaning of symbols associated with human rights violations such as closing and/or converting prisons associated with these violations, as proposed by the people affected and in coordination with them.
d) Remembering the names of those considered heroes in the achievement of peace, naming after them streets, public places, bridges, highways, a district or region, as proposed by the people affected and in coordination with them.
e) The inclusion as Heroes for Peace of every dead victim registered in the RUV [Central Victims’ Register].
f) Declaring 28 August as the Remembrance Day for the Victims of the Violence. 
Peru, Regulations to the Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan, 2006, Article 32.
Spain
Spain’s Law on the Victims of the Civil War and the Dictatorship (2007) states under the heading “General Acknowledgement”:
As an expression of all citizens’ right to moral reparation and to the restoration of personal and family memory, the radically unjust nature of all convictions, sanctions, and all forms of personal violence suffered for political, ideological or religious reasons during the Civil War as well as during the Dictatorship is hereby acknowledged and declared. 
Spain, Law on the Victims of the Civil War and the Dictatorship, 2007, Article 2(1).
United States of America
In 1988, the United States passed the Law on Restitution for WWII Internment of Japanese-Americans and Aleuts (1988) (as amended), the purpose of which was, inter alia, to:
(1) acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and internment of United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II;
(2) apologize on behalf of the people of the United States [for these acts];
(3) provide for a public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment of such individuals so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event;
(4) make restitution to those individuals of Japanese ancestry who were interned;
(5) make restitution to Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands and the Aleutian Islands west of Unimark Island, in settlement of United States obligations in equity and at law, for –
(A) injustices suffered and unreasonable hardships endured while those Aleut residents were under United States control during World War II;
(B) personal property taken or destroyed by the United States forces during World War II;
(C) community property, including community church property, taken or destroyed by United States forces during World War II; and
(D) traditional village islands on Attu Island not rehabilitated after World War II for Aleut occupation or other productive use;
(6) discourage the occurrence of similar injustices and violations of civil liberties in the future; and
(7) make more credible and sincere any declaration of concern by the United States over violations of human rights committed by other nations. 
United States, Law on Restitution for WWII Internment of Japanese-Americans and Aleuts (as amended), 1988, Purposes, Section 1989.
Title I of the Law, entitled “United States Citizens of Japanese Ancestry and Resident Japanese Aliens”, provides:
Each department and agency of the United States Government shall review with liberality, giving full consideration to the findings of the Commission and the statement of the Congress set forth in section 2(a) [section 1989a(a) of this Appendix], any application by an eligible individual for the restitution of any position, status, or entitlement lost in whole or in part because of any discriminatory act of the United States Government against such individual which was based upon the individual’s Japanese ancestry and which occurred during the evacuation, relocation, and internment period. 
United States, Law on Restitution for WWII Internment of Japanese-Americans and Aleuts (as amended), 1988, Title I, Section 1989b-2.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
14.1. The State shall be responsible for the reparation of victims of the crimes set out in Titles I to III of Part II of the present law committed in the territory of the Republic or abroad by agents of the State or by persons who were not agents of the State but who acted under the authorization, support or acquiescence of State agents.
14.2. The reparation of the victim must be comprehensive and include … restitution and rehabilitation and must be extended to the victim’s relatives or to the group or community to which the victim belongs. “Relatives” are understood as the group of persons united by the bond of marriage or parenthood as well as by the act of cohabiting or maintaining a common form of life. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 14.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Reparations (2009) states:
CHAPTER I
RECOGNITION BY THE STATE
Article 1º. – The breach of the rule of law which prevented individuals from exercising their fundamental rights, in violation of human rights or international humanitarian law, between 27 June 1973 and 28 February 1985 shall be recognized.
Article 3º. – The right to full reparation shall be recognized for all persons who, by action or omission of the State, are included in the definitions of articles 4 and 5 of the present Law. Such reparation shall be provided – where appropriate – with appropriate measures of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.
CHAPTER II
DEFINITION OF VICTIMS
Article 4º. – Any person who suffered a violation of his right to life, his psychophysical integrity or his freedom within or outside the national territory, between 27 June 1973 and 28 February 1985, for political, ideological or union reasons is considered a victim of State terrorism in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. Such violations must have been committed by agents of the State or persons who, though not agents, would have had the authorization, support or acquiescence of such agents.
CHAPTER III
ON REPARATIONS
Article 7º. – The State shall promote material or symbolic actions of moral reparation in order to restore the dignity of the victims and to establish its responsibility. Such actions shall tend to honour the historical memory of the victims of terrorism and the illegitimate use of State power exercised during the period indicated in articles 1 and 2 of the present Law.
Article 8º. – In all public places where it is well-known that the human rights violations referred to in the present Law occurred, the State shall place on their exterior and in a spot visible to the public, plaques or symbolic material expressions recalling such events; be able to define the memorial placement for those buildings or facilities that recall such violations and may determine the celebration of dates commemorating the verification of the facts.
Article 9º. – The Uruguayan State, through the Special Commission established in Chapter IV of the present Act, shall issue a document establishing victim status and the institutional responsibility borne by the State for having undermined the human dignity of persons who:
A) have been detained for more than six months for political, ideological or union reasons, without having been tried in the country or abroad, under the control or participation of agents of the State or persons who, though not agents, would have had the authorization, support or acquiescence of such agents; and persons who have been tried for political, ideological or union reasons in the national territory.
B) have died in detention.
C) have been declared missing by judicial decision, under Law No. 17,894 of 14 September 2005, or who disappeared in a publicly and well-known event prior to the promulgation of the present Law.
D) at the time of the promulgation of the present Law, are in a situation of enforced disappearance.
E) have died as a result of or during illegitimate actions by agents of the State or persons who, though not agents, would have had the authorization, support or acquiescence of such agents.
F) have suffered serious and very serious personal injuries as a result of or during actions by agents of the State in the country or abroad.
G) were born while their mother was deprived of her liberty, or who as children were detained with their mother or father.
H) as children disappeared.
I) have been forced to leave the country for political, ideological or union reasons.
J) have required or remained in hiding within the national territory for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days running, for political, ideological or union reasons.
The relevant document shall be issued at the request of the party concerned or his successors or relatives, where appropriate.
Article 10. – The victims defined in articles 4 and 5 of the present Law, who have been detained for more than six months without having been tried, or who have been tried or suffered very serious injuries as a result of or during actions by agents of the State, or who as children were abducted or held in captivity with their parents, shall have the right to receive, free of charge and for life, on request, medical services that include psychological, psychiatric, dental and pharmacological assistance that will guarantee their full health coverage under the National Integrated Health System.
Without prejudice to these services, the State shall also provide, on request, scientific and technical support for the physical and psychological rehabilitation necessary to address any effects that impede the educational capacity or social integration of the victims. 
Uruguay, Law on Reparations, 2009, Articles 1, 3–4 and 7–10(2).
Netherlands
In its judgment in the J.T. case in 1949 in which an individual had sued the State for repayment of money taken by the police during the arrest of the claimant during the occupation of the Netherlands by the German army, the District Court of The Hague held that the State of the Netherlands must repay the money to the plaintiff. The Court held that it was true that the State was not liable for all acts committed by the resistance movement (Binnenlandse Strijdkrachten) which had been organized with the consent of the government in exile during the Second World War, but since it was definitely established that the money had come into the hands of the police, restitution had to be made. 
Netherlands, District Court of The Hague, J.T. case, Judgment, 13 April 1949.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2006, in its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
8. It is doubtless unnecessary, Madam President, to dwell on the general principles applicable – especially since, let me repeat, the Respondent did not challenge them when they were set out in some detail in the written pleadings of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Besides, they are well known and uncontroversial. It is therefore sufficient to recall that:
1. the basic principle, enunciated by the PCIJ [Permanent Court of International Justice] in the Factory at Chorzów case, “is that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act has not been committed”;
2. this basic principle is incorporated in Article 31 of the 2001 Articles of the International Law Commission;
3. pursuant to the provisions of Article 34 of those same Articles, “[f]ull reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction …”;
4. inasmuch as making restitution means “to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed” – this being a quotation from the ILC [International Law Commission] – it constitutes a prime means of reparation, since it is, by definition, the one best suited to effectively ensuring full redress for the injury sustained;
5. however, to the extent that restitutio in integrum proves materially impossible or “out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation”, reparation may take the form of compensation involving “payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind would bear”;
6. and lastly, “[t]he State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to give satisfaction for the injury caused by that act insofar as it cannot be made good by restitution or compensation”.
1. Restitutio in integrum
9. In principle, as the ILC stresses in its commentaries to the Articles on State Responsibility, “[r]estitution, as the first of the forms of reparation, is of particular importance where the obligation breached … arises under a peremptory norm of international law”. And genocide, as well as the other acts enumerated in Article III of the 1948 Convention, undoubtedly falls within this category.
3. Satisfaction
18. … I left out two types of injury when I listed the kinds of damage for which reparation can be made via compensation:
- moral injuries caused to the applicant State; and
- injuries under two separate heads of responsibility: incitement to commit genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide, to say nothing of the consequences of the breaches of obligations to prevent and punish genocide.
19. This is because, to tell the truth, none of these lend themselves to pecuniary appraisal. Thus, the reparation sought by Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect of these various breaches of the 1948 Convention attributable to the Respondent does not take the form of compensation …
20. Of course, this does not however mean that Serbia and Montenegro is free of any obligation to provide satisfaction to Bosnia and Herzegovina in other forms. Given the judicial context of the present case, the most natural mode of satisfaction, that which springs to mind immediately, also the most common in such circumstances, is obviously a formal declaration by this Court that Serbia and Montenegro has breached its obligations under Articles I to V – inclusive – of the Convention …
21. Members of the Court, in its Reply Bosnia and Herzegovina also asked you, under the heading “satisfaction”, to decide that the Respondent must in fact punish the individuals responsible for genocide and the other acts listed in Article III of the Convention, including those at the most senior levels, and to that end must co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia …
II. Other consequences of Serbia and Montenegro’s responsibility
22. Responsibility – that is to say, the whole set of consequences deriving from an internationally wrongful act – is not reflected solely in an obligation to make reparation, even though it is too often reduced to that. Thus, the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, even before referring to reparation, lay down, in two brief Articles, three other principles under which the State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is required:
- to perform the obligation breached;
- to cease the internationally wrongful act if it is continuing; and
- “to offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, if circumstances so require”
(although I for one am rather tempted to see these as merely a form of satisfaction). 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 7 March 2006, Verbatim Record CR 2006/11, pp. 29–30 and 35–37, §§ 8–9 and 18–22.
Burundi
In 2008, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Burundi stated:
Reference is … made to the creation of the National Commission for the Rehabilitation of Disaster Victims by Law No. 1/17 of 13/12/2002, which defines the Commission’s objectives, competence, organization and functioning. The Commission is responsible for rehabilitating children who were victims of the Burundian conflict, in particular by providing medical care and schooling. 
Burundi, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 7 January 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/BDI/2, submitted 17 July 2008, § 70.
Canada
In 1988, the Canadian Government concluded an agreement with the National Association of Japanese Canadians, the so-called Japanese-Canadian Redress Agreement, the terms of which provided:
Despite perceived military necessities at the time, the forced removal and internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II and their deportation and expulsion following the war, was unjust. In retrospect, government policies of disenfranchisement, detention, confiscation and sale of private and community property, expulsion, deportation and restriction of movement, which continued after the war, were influenced by discriminatory attitudes. Japanese Canadians who were interned had their property liquidated and the proceeds of sale were used to pay for their own internment.
Therefore, the Government of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, does hereby:
1) acknowledge that the treatment of Japanese Canadians during and after World War II was unjust and violated principles of human rights as they are understood today;
2) pledge to ensure, to the full extent that its powers allow, that such events will not happen again; and
3) recognize, with great respect, the fortitude and determination of Japanese Canadians who, despite great stress and hardship, retain their commitment and loyalty to Canada and contribute so richly to the development of the Canadian nation. 
Canada, Prime Minister, Agreement between the Government of Canada and the National Association of Japanese Canadians (Japanese-Canadian Redress Agreement), 22 September 1988.
Chile
In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile stated:
… [T]he Reparation Act established allowances and educational and health benefits for the spouses, mothers and children of victims. A total of 3,195 principals were recognized (2,772 victims of human rights violations and 423 victims of police violence, of whom 160 were members of the armed forces). 
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 105.
France
In 1997, the French Government, created by a decree a “Study Mission on the Spoliation of Jews in France” (also known as the “Mattéoli Mission”) with the task of conducting a study of the various forms of spoliation visited upon the Jews of France during the Second World War, and of the scope and effect of post-war restitution efforts. 
France, First Minister, Decree regarding the Study Mission on the Spoliation of Jews during World War II in France, 25 March 1997, Journal Officiel de la République française, 26 March 1997, p. 4721.
France
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, France stated:
63. As the Permanent Court of International Justice stated in a famous passage: “The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act … is that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed” [Permanent Court of International Justice, Factory at Chorzów, Judgment No. 13, 13 September 1928, Series A, No. 17, p. 47].
64. Restitution is the prime means of reparation. Under Article 35 of the [ILC] Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in this instance codifying a rule grounded in straightforward logic and supported by well-settled jurisprudence, the responsible State is required to make restitution “provided and to the extent that [it] is not materially impossible”. Now, even though it would appear from the Secretary-General’s Report that the wall is a massive structure intended tangibly to mark the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the destruction of that part of it situated on the territory and the restoration of the status quo ante do not appear impossible.
65. First, while restitution often proves impossible where the prejudice arises from the destruction of property, it would always seem possible if, as in the present case, the converse is true and it is a question of demolishing an existing structure. The process can sometimes present significant practical difficulties; they alone however are not sufficient to make restitution materially impossible. Second, and most importantly, Israel has on a number of occasions underscored the temporary nature of the structure it is building, insisting moreover that it be called a “security fence”, not a “separation wall” intended to be permanent.
66. At the same time Israel has clearly expressed its desire to condition any dismantling of the wall, or a change in its route, on progress in the negotiations on the final status of the occupied Palestinian territories. This is incompatible with the very spirit of the reparation process, as defined by the Permanent Court of International Justice in a famous dictum.
67. Finally, in order for the status quo ante to be restored as completely as possible, it is important that the dismantling of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory be accompanied by the annulment of the legal instruments having permitted its construction and, if necessary, the payment of appropriate compensation. 
France, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, §§ 63–67.
Guatemala
In 2003, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Guatemala stated:
The Peace Secretariat reports that it is implementing a pilot project offering moral and material assistance to people in the indigenous communities who have suffered violations, principally those in which, according to the Historical Clarification Commission, massacres occurred. Most of the beneficiaries suffered torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, it is running reconciliation workshops which have given rise to psychosocial, legal and moral support activities and moves to return property. 
Guatemala, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 27 May 2005, UN Doc. CAT/C/74/Add.1, submitted 8 December 2003, § 130.
Guatemala
In 2006, during the consideration of the fourth periodic report of Guatemala before the Committee against Torture, a representative of Guatemala stated:
The National Compensation Programme had provided reparation for violations, inter alia in the following spheres: forced disappearances; extrajudicial execution; physical and psychological torture; forced displacement; forced recruitment of minors; sexual violence and violence against children; [and] massacres. The means of reparation included: restoring dignity to victims; psychosocial reparation and rehabilitation; material restitution; and economic rehabilitation. To date, 338 people had benefited from those programmes and 22 had received financial compensation in their capacity as victims of torture. In 2005 and 2006 a sum of approximately Q [“quetzal” is the unit of currency of Guatemala] 3,225,000 had so far been disbursed. 
Guatemala, Statement before the Committee against Torture during the consideration of the fourth periodic report of Guatemala, 12 May 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.701, § 57.
Kuwait
According to the Report on the Practice of Kuwait, Kuwait insisted, before the UN, on the restitution by Iraq of the cultural objects that were taken from Kuwaiti institutions during the occupation, or that compensation be paid. 
Report on the Practice of Kuwait, 1997, Chapter 6.2.
Japan
In 1993, the Chief Cabinet Secretary of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, with respect to the recruitment and abuse during the Second World War of the so-called “comfort women” by the Japanese military, that “the Government of Japan would like … to extend its sincere apologies and remorse to all those, irrespective of place of origin, who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women”. 
Japan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary on the result of the study on the issue of “comfort women”, 4 August 1993.
Japan
In 1994, the Prime Minister of Japan stated:
On the issue of wartime “comfort women” [recruited and abused by the Japanese military during the Second World War], which seriously stained the honour and dignity of many women, I would like to … express my profound and sincere remorse and apologies. 
Japan, Statement by the Prime Minister on the “Peace, Friendship, and Exchange Initiative”, 3 August 1994.
Japan
In 1995, the Chief Cabinet Secretary of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement to the effect that:
Based on our remorse for the past … the project of the “Asian Peace and Friendship Foundation for Women” will be undertaken as follows.
1. The following activities will be conducted for the former wartime comfort women, through the cooperation of the Japanese People and the Government:
i. The Foundation will raise funds in the private sector as a means to enact the Japanese people’s atonement for former wartime comfort women.
ii. The Foundation will support those conducting medical and welfare projects and other similar projects which are of service to former wartime comfort women, through the use of government funding and other funds.
iii. When these projects are implemented, the Government will express the nation’s feelings of sincere remorse and apology to the former wartime comfort women. 
Japan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary, 14 June 1995.
Japan
In 1995, the Prime Minister of Japan, with respect to the Asian Women’s Fund established in July 1995 by the proponents from the legal, academic and NGO sectors in Japan with the support of the Government of Japan to the benefit of the victims recruited and abused as “comfort women” by the Japanese military during the Second World War, offered his “profound apology to all those who, as wartime comfort women, suffered emotional and physical wounds that can never be closed”. The Prime Minister further stated:
Established on this occasion and involving the cooperation of the Government and citizens of Japan, the “Asian Women’s Fund” is an expression of atonement on the part of the Japanese people toward these women and supports medical, welfare, and other projects. As articulated in the proponents’ Appeal, the Government will do its utmost to ensure that the goals of the Fund are achieved. 
Japan, Statement by the Prime Minister on the occasion of the establishment of the “Asian Women’s Fund”, July 1995.
Peru
In 2004, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Peru stated:
Insofar as, according to the TRC [Truth and Reconciliation Commission], the Peruvian State has the duty to offer due compensation to all victims of violence, including torture victims, the TRC recommended a Comprehensive Plan for Reparations, … This plan makes provision for various types of reparations, including forms of symbolic, health, educational, financial, collective and other compensation.  
Peru, Fourth periodic report of Peru to the Committee against Torture, 27 May 2005, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.697, submitted 15 November 2004, §121.
Peru
In 2006, during the consideration of the fourth periodic report of Peru before the Committee against Torture, a representative of Peru stated: “Other programmes [of reparations] … [are] being developed for the provision of health care for victims of violence and for the exhumation of human remains.” 
Peru, Statement before the Committee against Torture during the consideration of the fourth periodic report of Peru, 9 May 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.697 § 36.
Poland
In 1970, during a debate in the Special Political Committee of the UN General Assembly on measures carried out by Israel in the occupied territories, Poland stated:
The destruction of houses and the confiscation of property, which were designed to demoralize the inhabitants of certain areas and to force them to abandon their homes, were in violation of the basic principles of international law and contrary to the provisions of article 46 of the [1907 Hague Regulations] and article 53 of the fourth Geneva Convention. Since such acts were illegal, the Government of Israel was liable … for the restitution of confiscated property. 
Poland, Statement before the Special Political Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/SPC/SR.748, 10 December 1970, § 9.
Spain
In 2008, in its written replies to the Human Rights Committee concerning its fifth periodic report, Spain stated with regard to the reparation measures that have been granted to victims of torture:
[N]ote should be taken of the recent adoption of Act. No. 52/2007 of 26 December 2007, which recognizes and extends rights and introduces measures in favour of victims of persecution or violence during the civil war and the dictatorship; and which, with regard to compensation for victims of the Franco period (including victims of torture), provides for the right to claim redress and personal recognition. Article 1 of the Act establishes the right to moral compensation and to the commemoration of those victims and their families. Accordingly, article 2 of the Act acknowledges and confirms the basically unjust nature of all sentences, punishments and personal violence, which occurred for political, ideological or religious reasons during the periods in question. That general assessment is complemented, as the explanatory statement of the Act indicates, with a specific procedure for obtaining a personal declaration of rehabilitation and redress under article 4 of the Act. That right may be exercised by the victims themselves, their family or the public bodies, in which the victims held an office or carried out a relevant activity. 
Spain, Written replies by the Government of Spain to the Human Rights Committee concerning the list of issues raised in connection with the fifth periodic report of Spain, 14 October 2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ESP/Q/5/Add.1, Question 7(d), pp. 20–21.
Spain
In 2009, in its written replies to the Committee against Torture concerning its fifth periodic report, Spain stated:
167. … [T]he efforts undertaken in the last years by the Spanish State with regard to the victims of the civil war and the dictatorship … must be emphasized. The recent adoption of Law No. 52/2007 of 26 December recognized and strengthened the rights and established measures in favour of those who suffered persecution or violence during the civil war and the dictatorship, [including] the right of the victims of Francoism (including those tortured) to obtain a declaration of reparation and personal recognition.
168. In this way, the law recognizes in article 1 the right to moral reparation and to the recovery of the personal and family history of those who suffered persecution or violence during the civil war and the dictatorship. As an expression of this right, article 2 recognizes and declares the radically unjust nature of the sentences, punishments and other forms of violence [that were committed] against persons for political, ideological or religious reasons during the civil war, as well as those that occurred for the same reasons during the dictatorship. This generic declaration is complemented by … a special procedure to obtain a personal declaration … for all those affected, which may be exercised by them or by their families or by the public institutions for which they worked. 
Spain, Written replies by the Government of Spain to the Committee against Torture concerning the list of issues raised in connection with the fifth periodic report of Spain, 22 September 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/ESP/Q/5/Add.1, §§ 167–168.
Switzerland
In 2005, in a report in response to a parliamentary postulate on private security and military companies, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Nonfeasance in international law or activities running counter to international law which can be ascribed to states raises the question of their so-called state responsibility. Important rules regarding state responsibility are contained in the [2001] “Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts” of the “International Law Commission” of the United Nations (ILC), a document reflecting international customary law.
A state can be held responsible for acts carried out by its authorities who contravene international law. Conduct running counter to international law of an individual, a group of individuals, or a corporate body which are not state bodies can also be ascribed to a state if the named actors are empowered on the basis of the laws of this state to carry out sovereign activities, or if in their activities they in fact act under the instructions or under the direction or control of this state. In addition, the conduct of an individual or group of individuals, according to international law, is considered to be an act of the state if the individual or group of individuals, in the absence or default of the official authorities actually assume sovereign functions, and conditions are such that the exercise of such sovereign functions are required (Art. 5, 8 and 9 of the ILC Draft Articles).
The consequence of this state responsibility is the obligation to provide full reparation in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction to the wronged state or if necessary to the international community (Part 2 of the ILC Draft Articles). 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.5.1, p. 48.
[footnote in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2006, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a conceptual framework for dealing with the past, which states:
Although there is no standard model for dealing with the past, Switzerland has strongly contributed to the elaboration of a conceptual framework in this field. The so-called “Joinet principles” constitute the basis of this approach. They identify four key areas in the struggle against impunity:
- The right to know,
- The right to justice,
- The right to reparation,
- The guarantee of non-recurrence.
The right to know
The right to know the truth and the duty to remember involve both the individual right of victims and their families to learn the truth about what happened to them or their loved ones and the collective right of society to know the truth about past events and circumstances which led to gross human rights violations. These are an important part of the necessary measures to prevent the risk of human rights violations recurring.
In addition, it involves an obligation on the part of the State to undertake measures to preserve the collective memory and so to guard against the development of revisionist arguments. The most frequently used instrument to ensure this right is the extra-judicial commission of inquiry, also known as truth and reconciliation commissions. Their two-fold purpose is to dismantle the administrative machinery that has led to abuses in the past in order to ensure that they do not recur and to preserve evidence for the judiciary. The second measure often entails documentation and the preservation of archives relating to grave human rights violations.
The right to justice
The right to justice and the duty to investigate and to prosecute imply that any victim can assert his or her rights and receive fair and effective remedy for abuses suffered. This includes the expectation that the person or persons responsible will be held accountable to the law and that reparations will be forthcoming. It also entails the obligation on the part of the State to investigate violations, to arrest and to prosecute the perpetrators and, if their guilt is established, to punish them.
The right to reparation
The right to reparation, both at the individual level and in collective forms, entails individual measures for victims and their relatives or dependants such as:
- Restitution, i.e. seeking to restore the victim to his or her previous situation;
- Compensation for physical or mental injury, including lost opportunities, physical damage, defamation, and legal aid costs;
- Rehabilitation, i.e. medical care, including psychological and psychiatric treatment.
Collective measures of reparation involve symbolic acts such as annual tributes of homage to the victims or public recognition by the State of its responsibility, which help to discharge the duty of remembrance and help restore victims’ dignity.
The guarantee of non-recurrence
The guarantee of non-recurrence includes vetting/lustration and institutional reform. It emphasizes the need to disband para-military armed groups (DDR), to reform security institutions, repeal emergency laws, and to remove officials from office who are implicated in serious human rights violations following a fair and transparent procedure. It also foresees the reform of state institutions in accordance with the norms of good governance and the rule of law. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland’s conceptual framework for dealing with the past, 2006.
Switzerland
In 2013, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued the document “Women, Peace and Security: National Action Plan to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000)”, which stated:
The concept of [d]ealing with the past stems from the Principles against Impunity developed by Louis Joinet and approved by the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1997. These principles recognise the rights of victims and the duties of states in combating impunity in cases of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. The Principles against Impunity call for combined initiatives to ensure the realisation of these rights and obligations in the following areas: the right to know, the right to justice, the right to reparation and the guarantee of non-recurrence. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Women, Peace and Security: National Action Plan to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), 2013, p. 5.
The Action Plan also states:
GOAL 3
Greater inclusion of a gender perspective during and after violent conflicts in emergency aid, reconstruction and in dealing with the past
SUBORDINATE GOAL 3
Switzerland implements UNSCR [UN Security Council resolution] 1325 during and after violent conflicts, as well as in fragile contexts through its bilateral measures for emergency aid, reconstruction and dealing with the past.
Measures
3 Activities, programmes and projects focused on dealing with the past (DwP) incorporate gender aspects in in all four areas: Right to Truth, Right to Justice, Right to Reparation, Guarantee of Non-Recurrence). 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Women, Peace and Security: National Action Plan to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), 2013, pp. 16–17.
[emphasis in original; footnote in original omitted]
Switzerland
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, Switzerland’s chargé d’affaires stated:
We remain most concerned by reports of serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in Syria. … In view of the extent of the violations and the number of victims in Syria, a holistic approach will be required in order to address the victims’ right to know, right to justice, right to reparation, and the guarantee of non-recurrence, within the framework of a political solution to the conflict. 
Switzerland, Statement by the chargé d’affaires of Switzerland before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 19 August 2013.
United States of America
In a concurrent resolution adopted in 2000 on the war crimes committed by the Japanese military during the Second World War, the US Congress expressed its sense that “the Government of Japan should – (1) formally issue a clear and unambiguous apology for the atrocious war crimes committed by the Japanese military during World War II”. 
United States, House of Representatives (Senate concurring), Concurrent Resolution, H.CON. RES. 357, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, 19 June 2000.
United States of America
In 2001, a draft concurrent resolution was put before the US Congress for it to call upon the Government of Japan to “formally issue a clear and unambiguous apology for the sexual enslavement of young women during colonial occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands during World War II, known to the world as ‘comfort women’”. 
United States, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 1st Session, Concurrent Resolution 195, HCON 195 IH, 24 July 2001.
Zimbabwe
In 2014, in an oral answer to a question without notice in the Senate, Zimbabwe’s Minister of Defence stated:
[I]t is true as we all know that during the liberation war, the Rhodesians planted a lot of landmines along our borders with Zambia, Mozambique and South Africa …
There are people who have lost limbs; they have been amputated by these landmines and have undergone medical treatment. Some of them have got prostheses, that is artificial limbs and that process is going on.
With regards to compensation in monetary terms, that is for the time being not under way but we think everything that is possible should be done to rehabilitate all those that have been injured or maimed by these landmines …
In the Ministry of Defence, we are … working together with the Red Cross, so that those who have lost their limbs have got these artificial legs. 
Zimbabwe, Parliament of Zimbabwe, Oral answers by the Government to questions without notice in the Senate, Hansard, 28 August 2014, pp. 30–31.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1976 on South Africa’s military activities against Angola, the UN Security Council called upon the Government of South Africa “to meet the just claims of the People’s Republic of Angola … for the restoration of the equipment and materials which its invading forces seized”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 387, 31 March 1976, § 4, voting record: 10-0-5.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1980, the UN Security Council, recalling Articles 1 and 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, called upon the Government of Israel
to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron, and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed. 
UN Security Council, Res. 469, 20 May 1980, preamble and § 2, voting record: 14-0-1.
UN Security Council
In Resolution 687 of 1991 on Iraq, the UN Security Council noted that “despite the progress being made in fulfilling the obligations of resolution 686 (1991), many Kuwaiti and third-State nationals are still not accounted for and property remains unreturned”. It requested the UN Secretary-General “to report to the Council on the steps taken to facilitate the return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, including a list of any property that Kuwait claims has not been returned or which has not been returned intact”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 687, 8 April 1991, preamble and § 15, voting record: 12-1-2.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on Liberia, the UN Security Council:
Condemns … the looting of [the] equipment, supplies and personal property [of members of ECOMOG, UNOMIL and international organizations and agencies delivering humanitarian assistance], calls upon the leaders of the factions to ensure the immediate return of looted property, and requests the Secretary-General to include in the report [with proposals for assistance which UNOMIL or other United Nations agencies could provide in support of the Liberian peace process] information on how much of the stolen property has been returned. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1071, 30 August 1996, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN General Assembly
In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts”, to which the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, and thus Article 34 (“Forms of reparation”), Article 35 (“Restitution”) and Article 37 (“Satisfaction”), were annexed. In the resolution, the UN General Assembly took note of the Draft Articles and commended them to the attention of governments “without prejudice to the question of their future adoption or other appropriate action”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 56/83, 12 December 2001, § 3 and Annex, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the permanent sovereignty of the Palestine people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources;
3. Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, loss or depletion of, or danger to, their natural resources, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/229, 23 December 2003, preamble and § 3, voting record: 157-4-10-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the permanent sovereignty of the Palestine people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources;
3. Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/251, 22 December 2004, preamble and § 3, voting record: 156-5-11-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,
3. Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/183, 22 December 2005, preamble and § 3, voting record: 156-6-8-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,
Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/184, 20 December 2006, preamble and § 3, voting record: 164-6-9--13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,
Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/181, 19 December 2007, preamble and § 3, voting record: 166-7-6-13.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC called upon “Israel to restore and replace civilian properties, vital infrastructure, agricultural lands and governmental institutions that have been damaged or destroyed as a result of its military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2007/26, 26 July 2007, § 4, voting record: 29-2-18.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all parties to the conflict to respect IHL and “to provide sufficient and effective remedies to the victims of grave violations and abuses of human rights and of accepted humanitarian rules and to bring the perpetrators to trial”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/70, 21 April 1998, § 5(d), adopted without a vote; see also Res. 1996/75, 23 April 1996, § 10), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the right to the truth, the UN Commission on Human Rights stated that it was:
Convinced that States should preserve archives and other evidence concerning gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law to facilitate knowledge of such violations, to investigate allegations and to provide victims with access to an effective remedy in accordance with international law. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/66, 20 April 2005, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1996, in a report on a mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery in wartime, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences recommended, inter alia, that, at the national level:
The Government of Japan should:
(a) Acknowledge that the system of comfort stations set up by the Japanese Imperial Army during the Second World War was a violation of its obligations under international law and accept legal responsibility for that violation.
(d) Make a public apology in writing to individual women who have come forward and can be substantiated as women victims of Japanese military sexual slavery. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, Report on the mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery in wartime, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/53/Add.1, 4 January 1996, § 137(a) and (d).
International Law Commission
In 2001, in its commentary on Article 33 of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, the International Law Commission stated that when an obligation of reparation exists towards a State, reparation does not necessarily accrue to that State’s benefit. For instance, a State’s responsibility for the breach of an obligation under a treaty concerning the protection of human rights may exist towards all the other parties to the treaty, but the individuals concerned should be regarded as the ultimate beneficiaries and in that sense as the holders of the relevant rights. 
International Law Commission, Commentary on Article 33 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, UN Doc. A/56/10, New York, 2001, p. 234.
International Law Commission
In 2001, in its commentary on Article 35 of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, the International Law Commission noted:
(1) In accordance with article 34, restitution is the first of the forms of reparation available to a State injured by an internationally wrongful act. Restitution involves the re-establishment as far as possible of the situation which existed prior to the commission of the internationally wrongful act, to the extent that any changes that have occurred in that situation may be traced to that act. In its simplest form, this involves such conduct as the release of persons wrongly detained or the return of property wrongly seized. In other cases, restitution may be a more complex act …
(3) Nonetheless, because restitution most closely conforms to the general principle that the responsible State is bound to wipe out the legal and material consequences of its wrongful act by re-establishing the situation that would exist if that act had not been committed, it comes first among the forms of reparation. The primacy of restitution was confirmed by the Permanent Court [of International Justice] in the Factory at Chorzów case when it said that the responsible State was under “the obligation to restore the undertaking and, if this be not possible, to pay its value at the time of the indemnification, which value is designed to take the place of restitution which has become impossible” …
(5) Restitution may take the form of material restoration or return of territory, persons or property, or the reversal of some juridical act, or some combination of them. Examples of material restitution include the release of detained individuals, the handing over to a State of an individual arrested in its territory, the handing over to a State of … other types of property, including documents, works of art … 
International Law Commission, Commentary on Article 35 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, UN Doc. A/56/10, New York, 2001, pp. 238–240.
International Law Commission
In 2001, in its commentary on Article 36 of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, the International Law Commission noted:
Satisfaction is concerned with non-material injury, specifically non-material injury to the State, on which a monetary value can be put only in a highly approximate and notional way … Satisfaction … is the remedy for those injuries, not financially assessable, which amount to an affront [of the State]. 
International Law Commission, Commentary on Article 36 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, UN Doc. A/56/10, New York, 2001, pp. 246 and 264.
International Law Commission
In 2001, in its commentary on Article 37 of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, the International Law Commission stated:
Satisfaction … is not a standard form of reparation … It is only in those cases where [restitution or compensation] have not provided full reparation that satisfaction may be required … Satisfaction … is the remedy for those injuries, not financially assessable, which amount to an affront to the State … The appropriate form of satisfaction will depend on the circumstances and cannot be prescribed in advance. Many possibilities exist, including due inquiry into the causes of an accident resulting in harm or injury, … disciplinary or penal action against the individuals whose conduct caused the intentionally wrongful act or the award of symbolic damages for non-pecuniary injury. Assurances or guarantees of non-repetition, which are dealt with in the Articles in the context of cessation, may also amount to a form of satisfaction. 
International Law Commission, Commentary on Article 37 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, UN Doc. A/56/10, New York, 2001, pp. 263–266.
No data.
No data.
International Court of Justice
In its judgment on the merits in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) in 2007, the ICJ, dealing with the question of reparation for the failure to comply with the obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention to prevent and punish genocide, stated:
460. The principle governing the determination of reparation for an internationally wrongful act is as stated by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Factory at Chorzów case: that “reparation must, so far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed” (P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 17, p. 47: see also Article 31 of the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility). In the circumstances of this case, as the Applicant recognizes, it is inappropriate to ask the Court to find that the Respondent is under an obligation of restitutio in integrum. Insofar as restitution is not possible, as the Court stated in the case of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), “[i]t is a well-established rule of international law that an injured State is entitled to obtain compensation from the State which has committed an internationally wrongful act for the damage caused by it” (I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 81, para. 152.; cf. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 198, paras. 152–153; see also Article 36 of the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility). It is therefore appropriate to consider what were the consequences of the failure of the Respondent to comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and what damage can be said to have been caused thereby.
461. The Court has found that the authorities of the Respondent could not have been unaware of the grave risk of genocide once the VRS [Army of Republika Srpska] forces had decided to take possession of the Srebrenica enclave, and that in view of its influence over the events, the Respondent must be held to have had the means of action by which it could seek to prevent genocide, and to have manifestly refrained from employing them (paragraph 438). To that extent therefore it failed to comply with its obligation of prevention under the Convention. The obligation to prevent the commission of the crime of genocide is imposed by the Genocide Convention on any State party which, in a given situation, has it in its power to contribute to restraining in any degree the commission of genocide. To make this finding, the Court did not have to decide whether the acts of genocide committed at Srebrenica would have occurred anyway even if the Respondent had done as it should have and employed the means available to it. This is because, as explained above, the obligation to prevent genocide places a State under a duty to act which is not dependent on the certainty that the action to be taken will succeed in preventing the commission of acts of genocide, or even on the likelihood of that outcome. It therefore does not follow from the Court’s reasoning above in finding a violation by the Respondent of its obligation of prevention that the atrocious suffering caused by the genocide committed at Srebrenica would not have occurred had the violation not taken place.
462. The Court cannot however leave it at that. Since it now has to rule on the claim for reparation, it must ascertain whether, and to what extent, the injury asserted by the Applicant is the consequence of wrongful conduct by the Respondent with the consequence that the Respondent should be required to make reparation for it, in accordance with the principle of customary international law stated above. In this context, the question just mentioned, whether the genocide at Srebrenica would have taken place even if the Respondent had attempted to prevent it by employing all means in its possession, becomes directly relevant, for the definition of the extent of the obligation of reparation borne by the Respondent as a result of its wrongful conduct. The question is whether there is a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus between the wrongful act, the Respondent’s breach of the obligation to prevent genocide, and the injury suffered by the Applicant, consisting of all damage of any type, material or moral, caused by the acts of genocide. Such a nexus could be considered established only if the Court were able to conclude from the case as a whole and with a sufficient degree of certainty that the genocide at Srebrenica would in fact have been averted if the Respondent had acted in compliance with its legal obligations. However, the Court clearly cannot do so. As noted above, the Respondent did have significant means of influencing the Bosnian Serb military and political authorities which it could, and therefore should, have employed in an attempt to prevent the atrocities, but it has not been shown that, in the specific context of these events, those means would have sufficed to achieve the result which the Respondent should have sought. Since the Court cannot therefore regard as proven a causal nexus between the Respondent’s violation of its obligation of prevention and the damage resulting from the genocide at Srebrenica, financial compensation is not the appropriate form of reparation for the breach of the obligation to prevent genocide.
463. It is however clear that the Applicant is entitled to reparation in the form of satisfaction, and this may take the most appropriate form, as the Applicant itself suggested, of a declaration in the present Judgment that the Respondent has failed to comply with the obligation imposed by the Convention to prevent the crime of genocide. As in the Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania) case, the Court considers that a declaration of this kind is “in itself appropriate satisfaction” (Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, pp. 35, 36), and it will, as in that case, include such a declaration in the operative clause of the present Judgment. The Applicant acknowledges that this failure is no longer continuing, and accordingly has withdrawn the request made in the Reply that the Court declare that the Respondent “has violated and is violating the Convention” (emphasis added).
464. The Court now turns to the question of the appropriate reparation for the breach by the Respondent of its obligation under the Convention to punish acts of genocide; in this respect, the Applicant asserts the existence of a continuing breach, and therefore maintains (inter alia) its request for a declaration in that sense. As noted above (paragraph 440), the Applicant includes under this heading the failure “to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any other act prohibited by the Convention to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and to fully co-operate with this Tribunal”; and the Court has found that in that respect the Respondent is indeed in breach of Article VI of the Convention (paragraph 449 above). A declaration to that effect is therefore one appropriate form of satisfaction, in the same way as in relation to the breach of the obligation to prevent genocide. However, the Applicant asks the Court in this respect to decide more specifically that
“Serbia and Montenegro shall immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation to punish acts of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide or any other act prohibited by the Convention and to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any other act prohibited by the Convention to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and to fully co-operate with this Tribunal.”
465. It will be clear from the Court’s findings above on the question of the obligation to punish under the Convention that it is satisfied that the Respondent has outstanding obligations as regards the transfer to the ICTY of persons accused of genocide, in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladić (paragraph 448). The Court will therefore make a declaration in these terms in the operative clause of the present Judgment, which will in its view constitute appropriate satisfaction.
466. In its final submissions, the Applicant also requests the Court to decide “that Serbia and Montenegro shall provide specific guarantees and assurances that it will not repeat the wrongful acts complained of, the form of which guarantees and assurances is to be determined by the Court”. As presented, this submission relates to all the wrongful acts, i.e. breaches of the Genocide Convention, attributed by the Applicant to the Respondent, thus including alleged breaches of the Respondent’s obligation not itself to commit genocide, as well as the ancillary obligations under the Convention concerning complicity, conspiracy and incitement. Insofar as the Court has not upheld these claims, the submission falls. There remains however the question whether it is appropriate to direct that the Respondent provide guarantees and assurances of non-repetition in relation to the established breaches of the obligations to prevent and punish genocide. The Court notes the reasons advanced by counsel for the Applicant at the hearings in support of the submission, which relate for the most part to “recent events [which] cannot fail to cause concern as to whether movements in Serbia and Montenegro calling for genocide have disappeared”. It considers that these indications do not constitute sufficient grounds for requiring guarantees of non-repetition. The Applicant also referred in this connection to the question of non-compliance with provisional measures, but this matter has already been examined above (paragraphs 451 to 458), and will be mentioned further below. In the circumstances, the Court considers that the declaration referred to in paragraph 465 above is sufficient as regards the Respondent’s continuing duty of punishment, and therefore does not consider that this is a case in which a direction for guarantees of non-repetition would be appropriate. 
ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, Judgment, 26 February 2007, §§ 460–466.
International Court of Justice
In the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay case in 2010, the ICJ held that restitution was an acceptable form of reparation for injury in customary international law. The ICJ stated:
273. The Court recalls that customary international law provides for restitution as one form of reparation for injury, restitution being the re-establishment of the situation which existed before occurrence of the wrongful act. The Court further recalls that, where restitution is materially impossible or involves a burden out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from it, reparation takes the form of compensation or satisfaction, or even both (see Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 81, para. 152; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 198, paras. 152–153; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 233, para. 460; see also Articles 34 to 37 of the International Law Commission Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts).
274. Like other forms of reparation, restitution must be appropriate to the injury suffered, taking into account the nature of the wrongful act having caused it. As the Court has made clear,
[w]hat constitutes “reparation in an adequate form” clearly varies depending upon the concrete circumstances surrounding each case and the precise nature and scope of the injury, since the question has to be examined from the viewpoint of what is the ‘reparation in an adequate form’ that corresponds to the injury (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 59, para. 119). 
ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, 20 April 2010, §§ 273–274.
European Court of Human Rights
In its judgment in Akdivar and Others v. Turkey in 1998, the European Court of Human Rights stated:
45. The applicants further submitted that the Court should confirm … that the government should (1) bear the costs of necessary repairs in [their village] to enable the applicants to continue their way of life there; and (2) remove any obstacle preventing the applicants from returning to their village.
In their view, such confirmation was necessary to prevent future and continuing violations of the Convention, in particular the de facto expropriation of their property.
46. The government maintained that the restoration of rights is not feasible due to the emergency conditions prevailing in the region. However, resettlement will take place when the local inhabitants feel themselves to be safe from terrorist atrocities.
47. The Court recalls that a judgement in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to such breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (restitutio in integrum). However, if restitutio in integrum is in practice impossible, the respondent States are free to choose the means whereby they will comply with a judgement in which the Court has found a breach, and the Court will not make consequential orders or declaratory statements in this regard.
The Court awarded damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses but dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction. 
European Court of Human Rights, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, Judgment, 1 April 1998, §§ 45–47.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
In 2000, in Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez (El Salvador), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stated:
122. … The [Inter-American Commission on Human Rights] concludes that El Salvador has violated, to the prejudice of the victim’s relatives, the right to judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection, set forth at Article 25 of the Convention. The Commission also concludes that the Salvadoran State, by virtue of the conduct of the authorities and institutions identified in this report, is responsible for failing to carry out its duty to investigate seriously and in good faith the violation of rights recognized by the American Convention; to identify the persons responsible for that violation, place them on trial, punish them, and make reparations for the human rights violations; and for failing in its duty to guarantee rights as established in Article 1(1).
147. For its part, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has established, on several occasions, and specifically with respect to violations of the right to life, that the victims’ next-of-kin have a right to be compensated for those violations due, among other things, to the fact that they do not know the circumstances of the death and the persons responsible for the crime. The UN human rights organs have clarified and insisted that the duty to make reparations for damage is not satisfied merely by offering a sum of money to the victims’ next-of-kin. First, an end must be brought to their uncertainty and ignorance, i.e. they must be given the complete and public knowledge of the truth.
148. The right that all persons and society have to know the full, complete, and public truth as to the events transpired, their specific circumstances, and who participated in them is part of the right to reparation for human rights violations, with respect to satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. The right of a society to have full knowledge of its past is not only a mode of reparation and clarification of what has happened, but is also aimed at preventing future violations. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez (El Salvador), Report, 13 April 2000, §§ 122 and 147–148.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
In 2001, in the case of the Street Children v. Guatemala, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, referring to other judgements which it had rendered, stated:
100. On many occasions, this Court has referred to the right of the next of kin of the victims to know what happened and the identity of the State agents responsible for the acts. “[W]henever there has been a human rights violation, the State has a duty to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, […] and this obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality”. Moreover, this Court has indicated that the State “is obliged to combat [impunity] by all available legal means, because [impunity] encourages the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin”.
101. Accordingly, the Court reiterates that Guatemala is obliged to investigate the facts that generated the violations of the American Convention in the instant case, identify those responsible and punish them. 
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Street Children v. Guatemala, Judgment, 26 May 2001, §§ 100–101.
ICRC
In 1993, in a report submitted to the UN General Assembly on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict, the ICRC stated:
Article 1, common to the four Geneva Conventions and to Protocol I, stipulates that the contracting States are under an obligation “to respect and ensure respect for” those instruments. Beyond that, and on a more general level, a State is responsible for every act or omission attributable to it and amounting to a breach of an international obligation incumbent on it, including in the field of the international protection of the environment. States affected by such a breach are entitled to insist on the implementation of such rules of State responsibility, including cessation of the unlawful conduct [and] restitution. 
ICRC, Report on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict submitted to the UN General Assembly, reprinted in UN Doc. A/48/269, Report of the UN Secretary-General on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, 29 July 1993, § 47.
Spanish Junta de Defensa Nacional
In 1936, during the Spanish Civil War, in a note to the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Negotiations, the President of the Spanish Junta de Defensa Nacional, while denouncing and condemning certain acts of assassination, mistreatment and damage allegedly committed against his side and non-belligerent third parties by members of the adverse party (the “Red Forces Armed by the Government of Madrid”), apologised to the offended foreign government on the ground that the opposite side had not been able to enforce border security because it lacked the most elemental attributes of a territorial power. The President of the Spanish Junta de Defensa Nacional gave a guarantee to the Portuguese authorities that in no case would such acts be repeated and that the culprits would be prosecuted and punished. Moreover, he expressed his intention to repair the damage caused. 
Spain, Note from the President of the Spanish Junta de Defensa Nacional to the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Negotiations concerning a supposed incursion into Portuguese territory of “Red forces armed by the Government of Madrid” resulting in the death of a commander of the “National” army, mistreatment of Spanish and Portuguese subjects, and damage to Portuguese property, Burgos, 17 September 1936, reprinted in Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Dez anos de política externa (1936–1947), A Nação portuguesa e a segunda Guerra Mundial, 1964, pp. 285–287.
American Law Institute
The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, adopted and promulgated by the American Law Institute in 1986, provides:
Under international law, a state that has violated a legal obligation to another state is required to terminate the violation and, ordinarily, to make reparation, including in appropriate circumstances restitution or compensation for loss or injury. 
The American Law Institute, Restatement Third. Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute Publishers, St. Paul, 1987, § 901.
The Restatement (Third) further provides:
A private person, whether natural or juridical, injured by a violation of an international obligation by a state, may bring a claim against that state or assert that violation as a defense:
(a) in a competent international forum when the state has consented to the jurisdiction of that forum with respect to such private claims;
(b) in a court or other tribunal of that state pursuant to its law; or
(c) in a court or other tribunal of the injured person’s state of nationality or of a third state, pursuant to the law of such state, subject to limitations under international law. 
The American Law Institute, Restatement Third. Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute Publishers, St. Paul, 1987, § 906.
Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees
It was reported that, in the period from the beginning of its operations in March 1996 to the end of February 1999, the Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees, established by Article VII of the Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the 1995 Dayton Accords, had registered over 126,000 claims relating to almost 160,000 properties. It was expected that up to 500,000 claims could be submitted. 
Hans van Houtte, “Mass Property Claim Resolution in a Post-War Society: the Commission for Real Property Claims in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, ICLQ, Vol. 48, 1999, p. 632.
Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery
The Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery stated: “Reparation includes any or all forms that are applicable to the situation and cover all injuries suffered by the victim.” 
Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, The Prosecutors and the Peoples of the Asia-Pacific Region v. Emperor Hirohito et al. and the Government of Japan, Summary of Findings, 12 December 2000, § 32.
Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN)
In 2001, a provincial arm of the ELN in Colombia publicly apologised for the death of three children and the destruction of civilian houses which resulted from an attack with explosives which members of the ELN had conducted against a police station in the district of San Francisco, Oriente Antioqueño (Industrial Area). The ELN, which itself defined the attack as an “action of war”, expressed its deep and sincere condolences to all those who had been affected by the explosion and expressed its willingness to collaborate in the recuperation of the remaining objects. 
ELN, Head Office, Area Industrial, Communiqué relative to the events of 9 August 2001.