grave violations, including torture, extrajudicial execution and enforced disappearances and shall include prompt, impartial and thorough investigations leading to the identification, where appropriate, of the authors of the violation.50 41. An investigation into serious human rights violations should not depend on the filing of a complaint and should be initiated as soon as there are grounds for believing that ill-treatment has occurred.51 42. Undue delay in domestic proceedings also amounts to a denial of a prompt and effective remedy and entitles victims to bring claims before appropriate regional or international bodies.52 In Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka (1250/04), the UN Human Rights Committee held that the fact that it has taken more than three months to start criminal investigations and the lack of progress in the proceedings before the domestic court for four years after the incident amounted to an unreasonably prolonged delay.53 43. There are a range of different forms of reparation. These include:        restitution;54 compensation,55 including compensation for pecuniary damages, as well as moral damages,56 including the psychological the impact on a family of the disappearance of their relative;57 rehabilitation, for example, for victims of torture;58 or victims of abuse;59 satisfaction; public apologies and public memorials; amendments to laws and practices; punishment of perpetrators;60 December 2012, para 79; See also Communication 612/1995, Case José Vicente and Amado Villafañe Chaparro, Luis Napoleón Torres Crespo, Angel María Torres Arroyo and Antonio Hugues Chaparro Torres v Colombia, CCPR/C/60/D/612/1995, paragraph 8(2). See also UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.29, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, para.15. 50 See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.20, para. 14; Human Rights Committee, Communication 778/1997, Case Coronel et al v Colombia, CCPR/C/70/D/778/1997, paragraph 6(4); Inter-American Court, Barrios Altos v. Peru, Judgment (Merits) 14 March 2001, paras. 42, 43; European Court, Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998; Aksoy v Turkey, 18th December 1996. 51 See, e.g. Servellón-García v Honduras, 21 September 2006, para 119. Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1416/2005, Alzery v Sweden, 25 October 2006, para. 11.7. 52 Communication 73/1980, Pietroroia v Uruguay, A/36/40; Inter-American Commission, Capote et al v Venezuela, Report 96/06, 21 Oct 2006, para 72; African Commission, Communication 97/93, Modise v Botswana, 6 November 2000; European Court, Selmouni v France, 28 July 1999. 53 Communication 1250/04, Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, 5 Sep 2006, para. 9.2. African Commission, Communication No. 275/2003, Article 19 v Eritrea, May 2007, para 99. 54 Communication No. 857/1999, Blazek et al. v. the Czech Republic, UN doc.A/56/40 (vol. II), p. 173, para. 7. 55 UN Doc.A/ CONF.144/20, annex, Guide for Practitioners, p. 21, para. 83. Article 14(1) CAT. 56 E.g. European Court, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 28 March 2000. 57 Inter-American Court, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Compensatory damages, judgment of July 21, 1989, Series C, No. 7, p. 54, para. 52. 58 Article 14(1) CAT; CAT, UN Doc. AOR, A/56/44, p. 29, para. 65(e), 59 Article 39 CRC; Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, Article 8. 60 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add/13 (2004), para 16. 30