shelters for women who have been victims of sexual assault by their partners. And, of course, these measures are very difficult to follow up. Although the Committee [against Torture] also has the tools to facilitate this follow up through its periodic review, usually the Committee deals with this subject in particular with its recommendations, which usually can be conceived of as guarantees for non-repetition for a particular case. So the Committee could take advantage of this situation and already deal with these guarantees in the periodic review procedure. toward this situation, allowing presumption and circumstantial evidence for the issuance of reparation measures. Conclusion Finally, I would like to emphasize the importance of the recognition of victims’ groups in the Committee’s decisions. Serious violations such as torture have such a strong impact in that they not only affect the direct victim but generally their next of kin, as Dean Grossman mentioned. The struggle for achieving justice in which many times next of kin actively participate, frequently leaves entire families with significant material losses and emotional exhaustion. These effects should be taken into account by the Committee when issuing remedies for these indirect and direct victims. The Committee faces great challenges with these issues. However, reparations are fundamental if we want the individual complaint mechanism to be an effective litigation tool. Behind every human rights violation, particularly in torture cases, there is a human tragedy that needs to be confronted and suffering that needs to be repaired. It is tough, but I think victims deserve it. Also, other things that should be taken into account by the Committee, especially in taking into account torture cases, are procedural issues, which should be taken into account when deciding which reparation measures should be awarded, regarding the burden of proof and the possibility for victims to prove before the Committee the damage he or she has suffered. I say this considering the limitations that victims and representatives have, gathering all of the evidence for this. In this regard, victims and representatives are confronted with the state on an equal basis. Thus, the Committee should have a flexible approach Endnotes: Panel II 1 14 U.N. UN Comm. against Torture, General Comment 3, U.N. Doc. No. CAT/C/GC/3 (2012). 2 Id. at ¶ 2. 3 Id. at ¶ 10. 4 Id. at ¶ 23. 5 Id. at ¶ 32. 6 Id. at ¶¶ 4, 18. 7 Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan, U.N. Comm. against Torture, CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 (May 24, 2012) available at http:// www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/jurisprudence/ CAT-C-48-D-433-2010_en.pdf. 8 Id. at ¶ 11.2. 9 Id. at 12.8. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Gen. Comm. 3, supra, note 1. 13 U.N. Comm. against Torture, Concluding Observations, Belarus, U.N. Doc. No. CAT/C/BLR/CO/4 (2011) ¶ 24 available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/co/CAT.C.BLR. CO.4_en.pdf. Office of the High Comm’r for Human Rights, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), 2004, HR/P/PT/8/Rev.1, available at http://www.unhcr. org/refworld/docid/4638aca62.html. 15 U.N. C.A.T., Implementation of Article 14 by States Parties, U.N. C.A.T. General Comment 3, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/G/C/3 (2012), available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/GC3.htm. 16 Id., at ¶ 4. 17 Ley General de Víctimas, Diaro Oficial de la Federación [DO], 9 enero 2013. 18 U.N. C.A.T., Rules of Procedure, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/3/Rev.4 (Aug. 9, 2002), available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/ treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID= 1&DocTypeID=65. 19 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. 20 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Rules of Procedure, Rule 120, CAT/C/3/Rev.5 (Feb. 2011). 21 General Comment 3, supra note 1. 23