Yet, some countries have successfully transitioned out of authoritarianism or conflict, at least in part owing to measures of this sort. So, aside from the morally and politically compelling reasons for such measures, as well as the legally binding commitments to them, there is now sufficient international experience to learn some lessons from them. Recently, however, the understanding and implementation of these justice measures have changed. There is a keen understanding of the need to link the different justice initiatives, and to design and implement them with the participation of those they are meant to serve, including the victims themselves. Consequently, it is now clearer than ever that there is no single approach that will work everywhere. For example, the Secretary-General, in his report on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies,6 persuasively argues that “where transitional justice is required, strategies must be holistic, incorporating integrated attention to individual prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting and dismissals, or an appropriately conceived combination thereof.” Furthermore, he points out that “the most successful transitional justice experiences owe a large part of their success to the quantity and the quality of public and victim consultation carried out.” Finally, he insists that “we must learn… to eschew one-size-fits-all formulas and the importation of foreign models” and reminds us that “although the lessons of past transitional justice efforts help inform the design of future ones, the past can only serve as a guideline. Pre-packaged solutions are illadvised. Instead, experiences from other places should simply be used as a starting point for local debate and decisions.” This publication takes on board these conclusions, and tries to articulate their rationale and to illustrate them. It will stress the importance of designing and implementing reparations programmes in close association with other justice initiatives and with the participation of various stakeholders, and will offer observations based on experience in the hope that it will stimulate local deliberations about the shape that reparations should take in context. Stressing the importance of linking reparations programmes to other transitional justice or redress measures, however, does not preclude that reparations may play a particularly important role in a comprehensive policy to redress human rights abuses for the simple reason that they are the only measure that immediately and specifically targets victims. While prosecutions and to some extent vetting are, in the end, a struggle against perpetrators, and truth-seeking and institutional reform have as their immediate constituency society as a whole, reparations 6 2 health care or basic shelter and housing may also amount to gross violations of human rights. In international humanitarian law, “serious violations” are to be distinguished from “grave breaches”. The latter refers to atrocious violations that are defined in international humanitarian law but only relating to international armed conflicts. The term “serious violations” is referred to but not defined in international humanitarian law. It denotes severe violations that constitute crimes under international law, whether committed in international or non-international armed conflict. The acts and elements of “serious violations” (along with “grave breaches”) are reflected in article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court under “War crimes”. See Redress, Implementing Victims’ Rights: A Handbook on the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation (London, 2006). S/2004/616.