Part of this challenge can be mitigated through creative design. Since one significant constraint is a programme’s cost, fashioning one that distributes a variety of benefits (not all of them material or at least monetary) helps increase its coverage, without necessarily increasing its cost to the same degree. C. Which kinds of benefits should reparations programmes distribute? The combination of different kinds of benefits is what the term complexity seeks to capture. A reparations programme is more complex if it distributes benefits of more distinct types, and in more distinct ways, than its alternatives. The forms of reparations spelled out by the Basic Principles and Guidelines (i.e., restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition) can, for purposes of simplicity in the design of more narrowly conceived reparations programmes, be organized around two fundamental distinctions: between material and symbolic reparations, and between the individual and the collective distribution of either kind. Material and symbolic reparations can take different forms. Material reparations may assume the form of compensation, i.e., payments in cash or negotiable instruments, or of service packages, which may in turn include provisions for education, health, housing, etc. Symbolic reparations may include official apologies, the change of names of public spaces, the establishment of days of commemoration, the creation of museums and parks dedicated to the memory of victims, or rehabilitation measures such as restoring the good name of victims. These would fall in the category of satisfaction. There are at least two fundamental reasons for crafting complex reparations programmes. The first is that it will maximize resources. Programmes that combine a variety of benefits ranging from the material to the symbolic, and each distributed both individually and collectively, may cover a larger portion of the universe of victims than programmes that concentrate on the distribution of material benefits alone and therefore be more complete. Since victims of different categories of violations need not receive exactly the same kinds of benefits, having a broader variety of benefits means reaching more victims. Just as important, this broader variety of benefits allows for a better response to the different types of harm that a particular violation can generate, making it more likely that the harm caused can, to some degree, be redressed. Reparations programmes, then, can range from the very simple, i.e., merely handing out cash, to the highly complex, i.e., distributing money but also health care, educational and housing support, etc., in addition to both individual and collective symbolic measures. In general, since there are certain things that money cannot buy (and there are certain things for which there is no money), complexity brings with it the possibility of providing benefits to a larger number of victims—as well as to non-victims, particularly in the case of collective symbolic measures—and “La Paz Ahora” (the UDI proposal), published in La Nación, 20 June 2003.) This could have destabilized an otherwise solid consensus about the main lines of the approach to reparations set in place almost 10 years before. 22