Since the difficulties that have been pointed out with the collective material reparations programmes arise from the kind of goods that they typically distribute, namely, non-exclusive basic services, an obvious way to address them, and therefore to retain the distinctness of reparations programmes, is to at least organize them around non-basic services. Beneficiaries then have a reason to think that they are receiving something that citizens do not ordinarily receive simply by virtue of being citizens. Educational, cultural, artistic, vocational and specialized medical services targeting the special needs of the victim population are possibilities that deserve further exploration. In summary, complex programmes make it possible to turn more victims into beneficiaries than simpler ones at similar overall cost and, more importantly, they may also be better. They respond to a greater variety of victims’ needs, addressing not only material needs, but also the need for health, education and, through symbolic benefits, the need to make sense of a traumatic past. D. Defining the goals of reparations, and how this affects the level and the modalities of compensation 1. Levels of compensation One of the greatest challenges faced by reparations programmes is where, exactly, to set the level of monetary compensation. Practice varies significantly from country to country.48 For instance, although the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission had proposed giving victims a yearly grant of around $2,700 for six years, the Government ended up making a one-off payment of less than $4,000. The United States provided $20,000 to the Japanese-Americans who were interned during the Second World War. Brazil gave a minimum of $100,000 to the families of those who died in police custody. Argentina gave the families of victims of disappearance bonds with a face value of $224,000. Chile offered them a monthly pension that distributed, originally, $537 per month in preset percentages among the different members of the family. The rationale offered (if at all) for selecting a given figure also varies. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission had originally recommended using South Africa’s mean household income for a family of five as the benchmark. The Government’s selected figure of $4,000 was never justified in independent terms and does not correspond to anything in particular. The same thing can be said about the United States Government’s choice and Brazil’s decision. After some discussions took place suggesting that the reparations plan in Argentina could use the existing schedule for compensating job-related accidents, President Menem dismissed this possibility, arguing that there was nothing accidental about what victims had borne. He chose instead the salary of the highest paid government officials as the basic unit for calculating 48 See The Handbook… 27