programmes more complete. In situations of gross and systematic abuse, large numbers of victims may not be registered anywhere at all or not all victims may be registered in a single place. In protracted conflicts, in countries where the violence has been targeted at particular regions or groups and where trust is naturally low, victims will not necessarily go to the authorities to report the violations they have suffered. This is only one factor among many that explain why it is difficult to gather information about the universe of victims. Civil society organizations may, on their own and, particularly, collectively, have more information about that universe than official institutions. Bringing these organizations into the process from an early stage increases the likelihood that they will share information that is relevant for the design of reparations programmes. Throughout the registration process these organizations may have closer links with, and a deeper reach into, victims’ communities than official institutions. Their active efforts are, therefore, necessary to achieve completeness.24 Similarly, participatory processes may turn victims into stakeholders. In addition to having a reparative effect in itself, this may draw into the process people who may otherwise have remained at the margins. Indeed, participatory processes catalyse the formation of civil society organizations. The mere fact that a reparations programme is on a country’s agenda gives an incentive for potential beneficiaries to organize themselves. Participatory processes add an incentive for such organizations to build up their strength and capacity.25 • Outreach. Outreach in the context of reparations is normally understood in terms of efforts to publicize an already designed programme and to facilitate access to its benefits. However, if participatory processes of the sort just mentioned are to take place, outreach must start long before the programme is fully designed. This is particularly true in contexts in which there is, at best, a weak tradition of consulting citizens, or where such traditions were interrupted, as is frequently the case in post-conflict societies and societies in transition. Even a well-designed reparations programme will fail to distribute benefits to every potential beneficiary if it is not accompanied by effective outreach efforts once it is set in place. Some of the difficulties with outreach can be seen from the work of truth commissions. Merely writing a good report does not guarantee its uptake by civil society, let alone its 24 25 Part of the reason why the reparations programme established by the United States for Japanese-Americans interned during the Second World War was so complete was that Japanese-American organizations had been working with victims for years and had records of virtually all of them. See Eric Yamamoto and Liann Ebesugawa, “Report on redress: the Japanese American internment”, in The Handbook…. Peru’s strategy was twofold. Firstly, an international NGO, the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), teamed up with a local NGO, the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), to provide technical advice and capacity-building both to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to other local NGOs (human rights and victims’ organizations). They also produced a document that sought to sketch the conceptual and normative framework of an eventual reparations programme (Parámetros para el diseño de un programa de reparaciones en el Perú (Lima, 2002)), which, through consultations, was adopted as a consensual approach to reparations both by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and by the organizations. Secondly, to improve communication between the Commission and NGOs, a group of 10 organizations was formed to discuss reparation in detail with the Commission. For a detailed account of the reparations work in Peru, see Julie Guillerot and Lisa Magarrell, Reparaciones en la transición peruana. Memorias de un proceso inacabado (Lima, APRODEH, ICTJ and Oxfam, 2006). 16