nevertheless] remains the major principle.”52 In the special circumstances faced by the massive programmes, the double requirement of providing “fair and adequate reparation” replaces this criterion: Fair reparation expresses the need of taking into account, on the one hand, the overall transitional context in which reparation takes place (including the large numbers of severely damaged victims), and on the other hand, the scarcity of available resources to be allocated for reparation purposes. Fair reparation implies that (unlike the principle of restitutio in integrum) the size of reparation cannot be determined in abstracto or in absolute terms… At an individual level, fair reparation requires that the distribution of reparation is done in a fair manner, this means, without discrimination among groups or categories of beneficiaries (i.e., victims). Non-discrimination does not mean, however, uniformity of treatment of all victims, yet the reason for differentiation has to be reasonable and justified.53 As for appropriate reparation, it refers to the fact that the forms and modalities of reparation should be suitable, taking into account the harm, the victims, the violations, and the broader society. The scarce resources of countries in transition should be used in an optimized manner, both in qualitative and quantitative (i.e., effectiveness) terms.54 This conclusion underlines that there is a difference between awarding reparations within a basically operative legal system and awarding reparations in a system that in some fundamental ways, precisely because it either condoned or made possible systematic patterns of abuse, needs to be reconstructed (or, as in some countries, built up for the very first time). In the former case, it makes sense for the criterion of justice to be exhausted by the aim of making up the particular harm suffered by the particular victim whose case is before the court. In the case of massive abuse, however, an interest in justice calls for more than an attempt to redress the particular harm suffered by particular individuals. Whatever the criterion of justice, it is important to keep in mind the need to establish the preconditions for reconstructing the rule of law, an aim that has a public, collective dimension.55 Perhaps, however, more can be said about where the proper quantum of monetary compensation should be set, for these criteria of fairness and appropriateness are, in the end, very closely tied to judgements of feasibility. While these judgements are unavoidable, judgements about the feasibility of paying certain costs are usually of the ceteris paribus type, and in a transition or a post-conflict situation it makes little sense for all other things to remain equal. Unless there 52 53 54 55 Ibid., p. 459. Ibid. Ibid. See Pablo de Greiff, “Justice and reparations”, in The Handbook…. 29