A/76/168 institutional or legal reforms that might be called for to ensure non-repetition”. 38 Accordingly, full accountability for torture and ill-treatment, to capture both the reparative and preventive functions of accountability, should involve establishing and addressing the wider circumstances in which such abuse took place and/or in which any more systematic or systemic patterns of violation are embedded. 41. Indeed, the reparative dimension of accountability is not exhausted by redress for the specific violation. Rather, a proper recognition of the gravity of tortur e and ill-treatment, and of the wider circumstances in which such abuse was embedded, calls for transformative reparations. Transformative reparations are orientated not only at redressing or correcting the individual violations at issue themselves, but al so at transforming the enabling conditions in which such violations have occurred and proliferated. This transformative dimension of reparations attacks the wider circumstances conducive to such violations, and by implication has significant preventive potential. 42. In particular, it is well-established that torture and ill-treatment spread and metastasize in conditions in which systemic discrimination, material inequality and other sources of stigmatization, marginalization, exclusion and vulnerability prevail. 39 Accountability in its fullest sense must involve recognizing and seeking to transform these conditions. The recognition of such conditions can be enabled through: (a) the adoption of a wide lens in the investigation of alleged or suspected incidents of torture or ill-treatment, which should be capable of establishing the existence of a pattern or systemic issue, as well as the wider factors enabling or entrenching abuse; and (b) the examination of such systemic and structural factors by mechanisms orientated at preventing torture on the national and international plane. The transformation of these conditions would include revising violent or discriminatory political narratives, policies and practices, as well as pursuing measures to remedy legal, structural and socioeconomic conditions that may increase exposure to violence and abuse by State officials and non-State actors. 40 A truly transformative approach to accountability for torture and ill-treatment should accommodate and embrace socioeconomic, redistributive measures that meaningfully alleviate the unequal structures in which persons are systematically victimized. 43. Crucially, a transformative orientation means that accountability mechanisms must look beyond laws and procedures that apportion individual responsibility for the wrongdoing at issue and include wider processes of inquiry, reparation and reform that are better capable of tackling the “ecology” of torture. 41 As highlighted by the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women: “While criminal and tort procedures may seek to apportion individual responsibility for moral and material harm and grant reparations to victims, they do not provide the proper framework for rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition, which may have the greatest transformative potential.” 42 Accountability, therefore, must be understood as a participatory process which identifies, acknowledges and addresses the legal and institutional framework, as well as the structural and environmental condit ions, which enabled the violation, and is capable of triggering transformative responses to these findings. __________________ 38 39 40 41 42 14/23 A/HRC/14/22, para. 62. A/73/207, paras. 60–74; see also A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, paras. 171–172. A/73/207, para. 77. Danielle Celermajer, The Prevention of Torture: An Ecological Approach (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Ibid, para. 36. 21-09914