III.  ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS Both international jurisprudence and regional jurisprudence have established that a finding of State responsibility for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law should lead to the adoption by the State of measures to repair the damage it may have caused and to prevent future violations. Such measures range from paying reparations to the victims and their families, and giving assurances of non-repetition, to the adoption of legal mechanisms to prevent future abuses. While the obligation of the State to pay reparation for a violation of international humanitarian law is uncontroversial, the entitlement of the individual victim to claim such reparation based on international humanitarian law has been rejected by several domestic courts. In Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, the International Court of Justice found that Serbia had violated its obligations to prevent and prosecute acts of genocide. The Court decided that Serbia had to “take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide […] and to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any of those other acts for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and to cooperate fully with that Tribunal.”105 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights refer to international customary rules on State responsibility to order the payment of compensation to victims of human rights abuses.106 It should be noted that, under international law, the fact that an individual is found guilty of gross abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law does not exonerate the State from international responsibility107 and vice versa.   Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43. 106   For example, according to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “[i]t is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation which causes damage gives rise to a duty to make adequate reparations. The obligation to provide reparations is regulated in every aspect by International Law.” Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgement of 11 May 2007, Series C, No. 163, para. 226. 107   See, in this respect, article 25.4 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 105 73