of the conflict,29 the existence of human rights NGOs that construct victims’ files at the time the violations take place30 and other contextual factors must be taken into account. Furthermore, these decisions must be sensitive to the type of violation in question. It is one thing to prove illegal detention (which can already be difficult), quite another to prove forms of torture or sexual abuse that leave no observable mark, especially in the long run. The requirements for qualifying as a beneficiary should be sensitive not just to the needs of victims (for respect, avoiding double victimization, sparing them cumbersome, complicated, lengthy or expensive procedures), but also to their possibilities. The more demanding the evidentiary requirements, the more false claims will be excluded; but so will perfectly legitimate claims, preventing the programme from achieving completeness. In terms of standards of evidence and burden of proof, some Governments have assumed such burden and adopted fairly low evidentiary standards in their reparations programmes.31 Considering their past suffering, the consequent risk of re-victimization, and the difficulties victims encounter in gathering the relevant evidence, these seem reasonable decisions. B. Which violations should be subject to reparations? There is increasing consensus among human rights lawyers about the advisability of adopting a uniform definition of “victims.” The Basic Principles and Guidelines (paras. 8–9), for example, offer the following definition: […] victims are persons who individually or collectively suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that constitute gross violations of international human rights law, or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Where appropriate, and in accordance with domestic law, the term “victim” also includes the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization. 29 30 31 In Argentina, for example, the reparations programme for the victims of arbitrary detention admitted press articles as a form of evidence among others. This presupposes that the press is interested in these types of cases, which is not always the case in every country. The programme for the victims of forced disappearance admitted testimony of witnesses. See María José Guembe, “Economic reparations for grave human rights violations: the Argentinean experience”, in The Handbook… In Chile, for example, groups like the Vicaría de la Solidaridad started building files on the victims’ cases very early on during the dictatorship. This made a tremendous difference later on. Morocco’s Equity and Reconciliation Commission accepted at face value the testimonies it received and assumed the burden of proof. Some of Argentina’s reparations programmes accepted as evidence the corroborating testimony of two persons or, in line with a decree passed precisely to make the evidence required to receive benefits more flexible, accepted and judged, with other parts of a petition, documents of national and international human rights organizations, press articles and consistent bibliographic material. 18