A/55/290 26. According to the basic principles and guidelines, the victim’s right to a remedy encompasses (a) access to justice; (b) reparation for the harm suffered; and (c) access to factual information concerning the violations (para. 11). Regarding the right to reparation, it is stated that adequate, effective and prompt reparation proportional to the gravity of the violation and the harm suffered (para. 15) should include the following forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition (para. 21). The content of these forms of reparation is developed in paragraphs 22 to 25. With respect to his mandate, the Special Rapporteur notes in particular the recommendation that compensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage resulting from violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, such as (a) physical or mental harm, including pain, suffering and emotional distress ...; and (e) costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicines and medical services, and psychological and social services (para. 23). Furthermore, rehabilitation should include medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services (para. 24). 27. The Special Rapporteur shares the views of the independent expert that the State should ensure that its domestic laws, as much as possible, provide that a victim who has suffered violence or trauma should benefit from special consideration and care to avoid his or her re-traumatization in the course of legal and administrative procedures designed to provide justice and reparation (para. 10). The Special Rapporteur notes that this recommendation is particularly relevant for the kinds of violations that fall within his mandate. For example, the Special Rapporteur has received information regarding the so-called “virginity test” which has been complained of as being traumatic. The Special Rapporteur received information according to which women, even minors, were subjected to these tests after having complained of rape. It was alleged that not only the way the tests were carried out, but also the very fact that they were subjected to that kind of “testing” was a traumatic and humiliating experience which, moreover, is reported to entail stigmatization in the particular sociocultural context in which these women were living. 28. The Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize the inherent relationship between the right of torture victims to obtain reparation and the prevention or non- repetition of further violations. This link has been established, inter alia, in the revised final report of Louis Joinet on the question of the impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political) (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1) and the study of Theo van Boven concerning the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8). The Special Rapporteur believes that reparation, beyond the purpose of relieving the suffering of and affording justice to victims by removing or redressing to the extent possible the consequences of the wrongful acts, has an inherent preventive and deterrent aspect. 29. In his joint statement for the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture with the Committee against Torture, the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur urged all States to provide for fair and adequate reparation, including compensation and rehabilitation of the victims of torture, in their domestic law. On that occasion, the increasing need for legal assistance to obtain reparation, compensation and rehabilitation services for torture victims was also stressed. 30. It must be noted that in order to be in possession of all relevant information, the Special Rapporteur requests in his standard letter of transmittal of allegations to Governments information on the nature and amount of any compensation made to the victim or his/her relatives. It must nevertheless be stressed that details regarding reparation has rarely been received by the Special Rapporteur. 31. The prevalence of impunity is incompatible with full reparation to the victims of torture. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate his conviction, stated on several occasions, that the continuation of the practice of torture is caused, in part, by impunity, that is the implementation of de jure and de facto obstacles to the prosecution of perpetrators of torture (see E/CN.4/1999/61, annex). In particular, the Special Rapporteur has noted with concern the use of measures by States to limit legal liability such as the adoption of acts of indemnities or the granting of amnesties. 32. In addition, the Special Rapporteur would like to recall the obligation of States parties to the Convention 7