A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 rehabilitation, as well as measures to guarantee the non-repetition of the violations, always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case.112 171. I would like to emphasise again that on the procedural level, States commit themselves under article 14 to establish suitable institutions (i.e. primarily judicial institutions, such as criminal, civil, constitutional and special human rights courts, or national human rights institutions and torture rehabilitation bodies) to enable victims of torture to obtain reparation.113 It is important that the victims of torture themselves be entitled to initiate such procedures and enjoy equal access to these mechanisms without fear of reprisals. Given the special situation of victims of torture and other ill-treatment, who often suffer from trauma, States should ensure that special care is taken to avoid retraumatisation in the course of legal and administrative proceedings designed to provide justice and reparation. These considerations are particularly relevant with regard to victims of gender-based and sexual violence who need to be protected from further stigmatisation. In order to make effective use of existing remedies, victims are also often in need of legal aid and legal services, including forensic and medical expertise to secure evidence and substantiate their claims. In my experience, women and children often face particular difficulties in accessing these services, which deprives them of the possibility to effectively access the justice system. In this context, it also needs to be emphasised that, as the standard of proof may be higher in criminal proceedings, the availability of civil procedures to claim reparation should not be dependent on the outcome of a criminal procedure. 172. On the substantive level, reparation should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and harm suffered. What victims perceive as fair and adequate reparation for the ordeals they endured may differ from case to case. In my experience, victims of torture may not primarily be interested in monetary compensation, but in those means of reparation that are best suited to restore their dignity and humanity. As mentioned before, the public acknowledgment of the harm and humiliation suffered and the establishment of the truth through a comprehensive and impartial investigation, together with a public apology may often provide greater satisfaction to the victim than monetary compensation. The progressive jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in this regard is welcomed. In Vargas Areco v Paraguay, for example, the Court ordered the State inter alia to organise an official public event to acknowledge its international liability and apologise to the victim’s relatives, conduct public awareness-raising activities in schools and name a street after the victim.114 173. For many victims, justice is only perceived as being delivered when criminal prosecution has led to an appropriate punishment of the perpetrators. Criminal investigations and sanctions against persons liable for the violations are thus an important part of the full reparation for the harm suffered. In the case of victims of torture, full restitution to the status before the infliction of severe mental or physical pain is not possible. Since victims of torture often suffer from long-term physical injuries and posttraumatic stress disorders that may even make it impossible for them to return to their “normal” private and professional lives, reparation must include all necessary measures of medical, psychological, social and legal rehabilitation. The amount of monetary compensation must therefore include any economically assessable damage, such as the costs of long-term rehabilitation measures and compensation for lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits. In addition to reparation tailored to the needs of the individual victim, States are also obliged to adopt more general guarantees of non-repetition, such as taking resolute steps to fight impunity, including through the 112 113 114 Communication No. 212/2002. A/HRC/4/33 para 63. Vargas Areco v. Paraguay (2006). 45