THEMATIC REPORT 2017 REDRESS AND REPARATIONS METHODOLOGY The IRCT member centres participating in the DFI project identified redress and reparations as one of the thematic issues they wanted to explore using the clinical data collected over the course of the project. Based on feedback from the IRCT member centres involved in the DFI project and the relevance of the data they have collected, IRCT members from five countries were identified to be part of the report. The information in this report is based on anonymised client data that the torture rehabilitation centres recorded in their DFI database, interviews with the member centres to further explore the context and meaning of the data and other related background information. The report uses data collected over the last two years of the DFI project by five IRCT member centres that participated in the project and as such highlights their experiences alone. Therefore, the data should not be seen as a representative sample of the situation of all victims of torture who seek redress and reparations. Rather it illustrates the experiences of the 2,230 individuals whose data has been collected. The data should not be seen as a representative sample of the situation of all victims of torture who seek redress and reparations. Rather it illustrates the experiences of the 2,230 individuals whose data has been collected. As the data set used in the report is in its infancy, it is necessary to note a number of limitations, which impact on the degree of certainty reached by the conclusions in this report. Firstly, the total number of clients or of clients with a full dataset that were analysed is low for some of the IRCT member centres in the report. This is in part due to the short period of the project as well as technical issues that the centres may have experienced when updating new versions of the database. However, it is also due to the nature of the data entry process, whereby a client’s data may be recorded over a number of different interactions with the rehabilitation centre, and it may take some clients longer than others to disclose sensitive information in the course of their treatment. Secondly, there is a degree of discrepancy in the way some of the data categories have been interpreted by the IRCT member centres. However, where this may have been the case, the member centres have either clarified the specific context relevant to the data category, or the data category has not been relied on in the report. The conclusions drawn from the data highlight various challenges the clients have faced in accessing redress and reparations. These merit further examination through research and data analysis in order to better understand the detail and root causes of the challenges and their geographical applicability and relevance. page 8