might provide beneficiaries with a reason to think that the institutions of the State take their well-being seriously, that they are trustworthy. To the extent that reparations programmes may become part of a political agenda that enjoys broad and deep support, they might even have a positive impact not just on “vertical trust,” i.e., trust between citizens and the institutions of the State, but also on “horizontal trust,” i.e., trust among citizens. This conception of justice in reparations does not lead to a formula for quantification, yet it provides some guidance. Whether a particular level of compensation is fair cannot be decided a priori. Ultimately, it depends, in part, on whether beneficiaries feel that all things considered the amounts received constitute sufficient recognition, in the sense specified above, and whether they, as well as others, take the benefits to provide a reason for renewed (or novel) civic trust.57 2. Modalities of distribution • Lump sum or pension? The beneficiaries’ perceptions of the reparations benefits are in part shaped by the modalities of distribution. International experience suggests that it is better to distribute compensation awards in the form of a pension rather than a lump sum. Although lump sums in theory maximize individual choice, in some contexts coming into what may be seen as sudden wealth may cause divisions within communities and, more frequently, within families. There is also some evidence that lump sums are often misspent and that they have less impact in the long term than expected. Women, in particular, would seem to benefit more from a pension system than a one-off payment (which might make them the centre of demands for assistance and in effect do away with the whole award). Finally, and most importantly, a pension is more likely to be interpreted as a contribution to the quality of life of survivors rather than as the price that the Government puts on the life of a loved one or on the pain endured by victims. The very regularity of a pension may contribute to the experience of recognition of victims and to fostering trust in institutions from which they receive regular support.58 • Apportioning. Regardless of whether the compensation is paid as a lump sum or a pension, some countries have apportioned the payments in accordance with preset percentages among the family members. In Chile, the surviving spouse received 40 per cent of the benchmark figure of $537. The mother or, in her absence, the father received 30 per cent. The surviving mother or father of a victim’s out-of-wedlock children received 40 per cent. Each child of a disappeared person received 15 per cent until the age of 25 or for life if 57 58 This approach to the criterion of justice in reparations has already been adopted—and adapted—in the reports of the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, of the recent Commission on Illegal Detention and Torture in Chile and of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Sierra Leone. Parts of it are also incorporated in E/CN.4/2004/88. Adopting a pension distribution system generates challenges of its own, however, one of the primary ones being the achievement of legal stability. A pension system requires the setting-up of institutions that will last, and this is possible only if there is sufficient political will and support. Many countries have, therefore, opted to pay out lump sums. 31