By applying these criteria to the Committee’s decision, we can conclude that the formula contained in the Convention against Torture19 is the right to redress and an enforceable right to fair and adequate reparation. Let’s say a formula for issuing some concrete reparation measures in a particular case is that it is vague to just leave to the State Party the means to comply with the decision. Also, taking the risk of implementing measures might be contrary to the victims’ needs. By issuing particular reparation measures, the Committee would be able to control the implementation of its decisions through its follow-up mechanisms that would eventually make the individual complaint procedures a much more effective litigation tool, answer questions on the merits of the complaint. Now the way these hearings are held should be flexible enough as to allow the Committee to listen to victims’ needs. Of course not every victim has the chance to travel to Switzerland, so the Committee should be flexible enough to allow hearings in other parts of the world, maybe held by a Committee’s working group or by holding meetings with the use of technology. Well, the option of General Comment 3 on the purpose of dealing in a better way with reparations should lead the Committee to the issuance of detailed reparation measures. These would not only be translated into a better quality of the Committee’s decisions but also into their effectiveness, as I will further explain. should be taken into account by the Committee, especially when dealing with torture cases. An important principle in reparations is the causality principle, which states that the responsible state is only allowed to redress those damages that are directly caused by the violation of international law. However, in cases involving gross violations of human rights, such as torture, the causality principle should be understood as flexible enough as to encompass all the serious consequences of atrocities such as torture. Torture victims, as a lot of you should know, are frequently left with permanent damages as a product of the trauma experienced by torture. And in these cases, the Committee should use concepts already explored by other international bodies such as life, land, or lost opportunities in order to ensure that the damage caused by torture will be fully repaired. Having said that, for analytic purposes, reparation measures can be broken down into five categories, as explained by the commentary in General Comment 3,21 in accordance with international law. First there is restitution, which is aimed at restoring the situation to prior to when the violation took place. Of course this measure might be very difficult in cases involving gross human rights violations, such as torture, where the damage inflicted might be permanent. But it also involves other kinds of measures that are frequently very important for victims and for example, victims who are imprisoned as part of criminal proceedings, but on the basis of self-incriminating evidence obtained through torture. And of course there arise a lot of difficulties for the international bodies to ensure compliance with the measures, such as for habeas corpus petitions, because it depends on the domestic court’s ruling on a particular criminal proceeding. And it will be, I will assume, that the domestic courts will be very reluctant to comply with this kind of order. Implementation Procedures In this regard, it is also worth mentioning that the Committee already has the tools for an effective follow-up procedure of its decisions—tools that other relevant international human rights bodies lack. And I would like to mention here, for example, the case of the Inter-American Court [of Human Rights]; one of the weak points of the system is precisely the follow-up mechanism of the Court’s resolutions. As you know, every now and then the Court dictates a compliance resolution, holds meetings with victims and representatives, but under no clear criteria for advocates. On the other hand, the Committee’s Rules of Procedure establish in Rule 12020 a follow-up rapporteur-based mechanism that could periodically check the compliance with particular reparation measures as ordered by the Committee in a particular decision. Also the Committee could take advantage of its constant dialogue with States Parties in periodic reviews in order to hold special meetings with state representatives for the follow-up of decisions, and in particular, with the compliance with reparation measures. Second, compensation is a way of redressing all material and non-material damages through monetary means and it all encompasses actual losses and future loses, a measure that is very important regarding lost opportunities for torture victims. Third, rehabilitation measures, not only understood as medical and psychological services, but also other kinds of social services and legal services. These are measures aimed to fully give back to the victim the possibility of living a normal life in his or her particular social context. Fourth, satisfaction measures—very important in international human rights law—which are aimed at restoring the victim’s dignity and include very important measures, such as the full disclosure of truth and investigation and punishment for perpetrators, that are by themselves natural consequences of the human rights violations but have a very important reparation value for victims. Fifth, and finally, the guarantees of non-repetition, which includes, I will say, the most ambitious reparation measures that can be issued. They include new legislation—the issuance of new legislation and reform to states’ institutions. Actually, there are good experiences with other UN committees. The [Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women] has issued very interesting guarantees on non-repetition, for example, in cases regarding domestic violence. It has ordered the state to build, for example, In order to issue particular measures, the Committee should first have a holistic approach to these measures, considering that most of the time, reparation measures have no meaning for the victim within the context of redress unless the Committee has a comprehensive approach to these measures. Thus, for example, the compensation received is frequently viewed as actually being offensive by the victims in cases where the state hasn’t punished the perpetrators or even started a serious investigation of the facts. Also, medical assistance could be deprived of its reparation potential in cases where the state hasn’t publicly recognized its responsibility for the human rights violations. Also other things 22