24 GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice The standards which relate to reparations for gender-based violence can be determined in sev­ eral ways. Firstly, because of States’ due diligence obligations, just about all forms of gender-based violence will engender States’ general obligations to prevent, prohibit and remedy harms arising from acts of gender-based violence. For instance, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises that a breach of the Covenant entails an obligation to afford reparation to victims.27 However, many forms of gender-based violence, particularly those that have traditionally been associated with the private sphere, have not been translated into a human rights framework at the domestic level. Secondly, they can be extrapolated from other recognized norms of human rights and interna­ tional humanitarian law, to the extent to which gender-based violence forms part of those other recognized norms. As indicated, this is an imprecise exercise given that not all acts of gender-based violence will fall within the definitions of other crimes or human rights violations such as torture. The same is true for the U.N. Basic Principles and Guidelines whose provisions are tailored to “gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.” Are all forms of gender-based violence sufficiently “gross” or “serious” to fall within these parameters? The answer is not clear or obvious, particularly for domestic legislatures. Additionally, while shoe-horning gender-based violence in this way will gain these forms of violence entry into a privileged club where specific rights and obligations flow from a breach, the articulation of those rights and obligations does not account for the gendered nature of the violence, or the gendered impact of the harm. A “neutral” framing of rights and obligations tends to ignore or take insuffi­ cient account of the specific experiences of women and other marginalized groups. The resultant “neutral” reparations may not adequately reflect the specificities of the harm. Thirdly, standards for gender-based violence reparations can be extrapolated from the growing number of standards and related texts that deal with gender-based violence specifically. A number of mechanisms have sought to develop a more precise understanding of what reparations should entail to adequately incorporate a gendered lens. The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women has by far taken the broadest view of States’ obligations to afford reparations for gender-based violence. Its General Recommendation no. 33 on access to justice requires that States: “Ensure that reme­ dies are adequate, effective, promptly attributed, holistic and proportional to the gravity of the harm suffered. Remedies should include, as appropriate, restitution (reinstatement); compensa­ tion (whether provided in the form of money, goods or services); and rehabilitation (medical and psychological care and other social services). Remedies for civil damages and criminal sanctions should not be mutually exclusive.”28 Similarly, the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women requires States Parties to “establish the necessary legal and administrative mechanisms to ensure that women subjected to violence have effective access to restitution, reparations or other just and effective remedies.”29 HRC, General Comment 31, supra note 14, at ¶¶ 16-17. CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 33, Women’s Access to Justice, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/33 (July 23, 2015)[hereinafter CEDAW, General Rec. 33]. 29 Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women, (Adopted 6 September 1994, entered into force 3 May 1995, art 7(g)). 27 28