tions, and to a generalized sense of disappointment with the programme’s benefits. Moreover, the shift may be motivated by cases that probably are unrepresentative of the whole universe of victims, making civil litigation prone to entrenching prevalent social biases. Wealthier, more educated, urban victims usually have a higher chance of successfully pursuing reparations litigation in civil courts than poorer, less educated, rural individuals, who may also happen to belong to marginalized ethnic, racial or religious groups. Contextual factors may play a significant role. In most post-conflict societies and societies in transition, particularly those where the legal system has been shattered, it is unlikely that courts will be flooded with civil claims. Furthermore, some jurisdictions have underdeveloped compensation laws or laws that set compensation at very low levels, diminishing the appeal of initiating judicial procedures that may have a negative impact on reparations programmes. Nevertheless, those who are entrusted with the responsibility of designing massive programmes should decide how the programmes will relate to judicial proceedings. Given the significance of the possibility of accessing courts, all other things being equal, there should be a presumption in favour of leaving that right untouched or as uncurtailed as possible, with the proviso that no one should be entitled to receive benefits both through programmes and through courts.66 H. Making a reparations programme gender-sensitive67 Although several sections of this publication have already referred to the many ways in which decisions concerning reparations have an impact on women, the topic is so important, and reparations programmes have neglected it so often, that it warrants a section of its own. • Even before a reparations programme is designed, gender-sensitive strategies must be set in place to gather gender-specific information that will be relevant for the programme downstream and to secure the participation of women in debates about the design of the programme. Their presence might be crucial if decisions about criteria of access (including, importantly, application deadlines and evidentiary thresholds) are to be taken in ways that increase the likelihood that women will be appropriately served by an eventual programme. • In the critical issue of the choice of the list of rights whose violation will trigger reparations benefits, once again, the participation of women may help ensure that the sorts of violations of which women are predominantly victims are not left out. In general, requiring 66 67 In Argentina the victims of illegal detention were allowed to continue with legal proceedings already under way and could then choose whichever set of benefits was larger. The programmes were also made accessible to those who had judicial cases resolved, but with lower benefits than those provided by the programmes, so that they received the balance. “Gender sensitivity” need not mean greater sensitivity to the needs of women. However, the record of reparations programmes is in general so dismal in this respect that this tool concentrates on this sense of the expression. See the case studies in What Happened to the Women? Gender and Reparations for Human Rights Violations, Ruth Rubio-Marín, ed. (New York, Social Science Research Council, 2006). 36