Carla Ferstman 27 resorting to customary dispute resolution approaches, which tend to reinforce gender stereotypes and emphasize the restoration of the family’s honour, as opposed to the individual victims’ honour within the family. For instance, a perpetrator may be required to give an animal to the victim’s family, or the victim may be forced to marry the perpetrator. Thus, it is important for States to afford other routes to compensation. Some States have put in place criminal injury compensation schemes, which are administrative mechanisms to which victims can apply and require very low thresholds of proof for a victim to become eligible for compensation payments. The U.N. Basic Principles and Guidelines stipulate that “the establish­ ment, strengthening and expansion of national funds for compensation to victims should be encouraged.”42 Similarly, the Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women has recommended that “states should create specific funds to ensure that women receive adequate reparation in situations in which the individuals or entities responsible for violating their human rights are unable or unwilling to provide such reparation.”43 3. The Centrality of Rehabilitation: The need to afford access to rehabilitation regardless of whether a judicial process was initiated Measures of rehabilitation are typically critical for victims of gender-based violence. Numerous human rights bodies have underscored the importance of providing victims of sexual violence with access to free psychological care.44 However, it is important for facilities to be available to victims, irrespective of whether their claim goes to court or whether the alleged perpetrator is prosecuted and convicted. It is well known that victims who have faced sexual violence are unlikely to report the abuse, sometimes even to their families, because of the fears of being ostracized and that no one will believe them. This hiding away can compound the victim’s suffering, which could be alle­ viated through appropriate treatment and support. Moreover, delayed medical interventions, like specialised reproductive care or fistula repair, can be both traumatic and dangerous for victims. It is important that rehabilitation be available to all victims who need it, not only to a certain category or subset of victims with a particular immigration status,45 or who cooperated with law enforcement,46 or filed claims, or whose cases were brought to court and/or resulted in convictions. The victim’s status as a victim (and entitlements as a victim) does not depend on the juridical recognition of a perpetrator: “A person shall be considered a victim regardless of whether the per­ petrator of the violation is identified, apprehended, prosecuted, or convicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.”47 This is particularly important for cases of gender-based violence, which rarely result in convictions. The Committee against Torture has recognized that “access to rehabilitation programmes should not depend on the victim pursu­ ing judicial remedies.”48 Forcing victims of sexual and other forms of gender-based violence to reveal themselves indi­ vidually in order to access services may act as a deterrence for some. As the Office of the High Basic Principles and Guidelines, supra note 9, at Preamble. CEDAW, General Rec. 33, supra note 28, at ¶ 19(d). 44 See, e.g., RPB v the Philippines, Communication No. 34/2011, CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011, at ¶ 9 (Mar. 12, 2014). 45 A/66/283, supra note 16, at 9(b)(i). 46 Id. at ¶ 17. 47 Basic Principles and Guidelines, supra note 9, at ¶ 9. 48 CAT, General Comment 3, supra note 14, at ¶ 15. 42 43