Mr. Kartik Raj:

I thank the Chair for his indulgence and wish to respond to his point about economics. Clearly, the continuing relative deprivation in the worst affected areas was an important foundational context for the research we undertook. In that context, we must acknowledge the work of the late Inez McCormack through the Participation and Practice of Rights Project in highlighting that aspect of the failure to come to terms with the past. As an international human rights group examining the issue of dealing with the past through the lens of the right to effective remedy, I would point the committee to pages 18 and 19 of our full report where we lay out the five recognised forms of reparation that include a range of measures that would allow for the repair of the harm caused to survivors and victims, including individual restitution, compensation and rehabilitation as well as more general societal guarantees of non-repetition or recurrence. The latter refers to broader societal initiatives, institutional reforms, increasing trust in the rule of law, fostering a society that has greater respect for human rights and restoring public trust in authority. We are seeing some tangible results in that context, as part of the peace dividend.