are explicitly and primarily carried out on behalf of victims. Hence, in terms of potential direct impact on victims at least, they occupy a special place among redress measures.7 The hope is that this publication will provide some guidance in the design of fair and effective reparations policies.8 7 8 Two caveats are important. First, the positive consequences of a well-designed reparations programme go well beyond the victims alone. Second, to argue for the special importance for victims of a particular justice measure does not justify, either legally or morally, asking them—or anyone else—to trade off among the different justice initiatives. Thus, Governments should not try to buy, say, impunity for perpetrators by offering victims “generous” reparations. This publication distinguishes between reparations “efforts” and “programmes”. The latter should be reserved to designate initiatives that are designed from the outset as a systematically interlinked set of reparations measures. Most countries do not have reparations programmes in this sense. Reparations benefits are most often the result of discrete initiatives that come about incrementally rather than from a deliberately designed plan. When appropriate, this tool will use the terms interchangeably. 3