Carla Ferstman 21 dence of international courts or tribunals; increasingly, domestic anti-torture statutes are grappling with definitions of torture, which include acts by non-State actors.8 While this practice has its critics, it affords additional avenues to pursue acts of sexual and other gender-based violence under the frame of torture. The right of victims of torture to reparations is well-established, though often un-implemented. As Professor Van Boven, the former Special Rapporteur on torture and principal author of the United Nations (U.N.) 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 Law9 has indicated, “In spite of the existence of relevant international standards . . . the perspective of the victim is often overlooked. It appears that many authorities consider this perspective a complication, an inconvenience and a marginal phenomenon.”10 The reasons for the lack of implementation are multiple and are discussed below. These reasons are compounded for victims of gender-based violence that may amount to torture. II. Context Reparations for victims of gender-based violence is a subject which is getting increasing attention by academics, policy-makers and activists. However, there is a tendency for this focus to be nar­ rowly construed—most of the attention has focused on the rape of women and girls during conflict. Sometimes these rapes occur in public, in front of family members or villagers. They may be carried out as an official policy of the warring factions to destabilise communities, but are often also carried out by civilians acting opportunistically against vulnerable persons caught up in difficult situations. While this phenomena of conflict rape deserves our attention, the overly narrow focus on con­ flict gives the impression that it is the conflict which is the cause for this aberrant behaviour, as opposed to structural discrimination and impunity, which are present in both conflict and peace times. Also, the focus on rape leaves out a range of other behaviours which may amount to gen­ der-based violence during conflict such as: mutilation or burning of sexual organs, forced sterili­ sations and pregnancies, knowingly infecting another with HIV/AIDS, sexual exploitation, sexual slavery, and forced marriage. Rashida Manjoo, the former Special Rapporteur on violence against women, has raised concerns about this exclusive focus on sexual violence, which she says runs the risk of “sexualizing women”: The current explicit inclusion of sexual violence in many reparations programmes is a victory against a tradition that minimizes its importance as collateral, private or non-po­ litical damage. Nevertheless, the forms of sexual violence that are included are often limited in range and other forms of victimization with a disparate gender impact are also not included. Often excluded have been forms of reproductive violence (including forced abortions, sterilization or impregnations), domestic enslavement, forced “marital” unions, forced displacement, abduction and forced recruitment. Gross violations of social, economic and cultural rights have also been excluded, even when they result in the loss of health, life and death of culture, or when such violations are specifically related to sys­ 8 E.g., the Ugandan Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act (2012) defines torture in Art 2(1) as applying to “… any person whether a public official or other person acting in an official or private capacity.” 9 G.A. Res. 60/147 (Dec. 16, 2005) [hereinafter Basic Principles and Guidelines]. 10 Theo van Boven (Special Rapporteur), Study Concerning the Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ¶¶ 132-33 U.N. Doc. E/ CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8 (July 2, 1993).