Report on Reparations and Compensation Mechanisms

Objectives of the report

SAHR’s report on Reparations and Compensation mechanisms evaluates Kenya’s reparation and compensation mechanisms for sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), including the Sexual Offences Act 2006, against the “UN Basic Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation”. It finds that, although the Kenyan government has enacted laws designed to provide reparations and compensation to victims of SGBV, their failure to operationalize such measures has left many victims without remedies. 

Key findings

The Application and Enforcement of Reparations by Victims of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Kenya

The report begins with an evaluation of the existing SGBV legislative and policy landscape in Kenya. After identifying the avenues intended to connect victims to the monetary components (i.e. compensation) and non-monetary components (i.e., restitution, rehabilitation, and satisfaction) of reparations, the report evaluates their accessibility. Kenya’s progress on administering reparations, fails to adhere to the UN Basic Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation. 

While the Kenyan government has adopted laws that fulfill the requirements of the UN Guidelines, their failure to finalize, gazette, and operationalize regulations has impeded victims’ access to reparations.

Principles and Approaches for Gender-Competent and Survivor-Centered Reparations Mechanisms

The report then delves into principles and approaches for crafting gender-competent and survivor-centered reparations mechanisms, advocating for a holistic, transformative approach to reparations in place of purely monetary reparations. States should:

  • Recognize victims as rights holders and affirm states’ obligations, as established in international law, to provide compensation and reparations to victims.

  • Adopt a multifaceted approach to reparation program design that removes barriers to accessibility

  • Actively involve stakeholders, particularly victims

  • Implement comprehensive and integrated reparation elements; and 

  • Prioritize inclusivity and equitability by considering the needs of all victims. 

This multifaceted approach serves the entire program reparations mechanism design process, from program design to implementation.

In service of this approach, the report calls particular attention to the need for streamlined, flexible, and accessible proceedings and transformative reparations that “seeks to transform gender (and other) relations and social structures to address inequalities and reduce the likelihood of repetition.”

Case Studies

The report concludes with several comparative case studies, examining the implementation of SGBV reparations mechanisms in Colombia, Mexico, Sierra Leone, and Uruguay as potential models for improvement upon the implementation of reparations mechanisms in Kenya. 

For each country, the report identifies individual and collective reparations measures, evaluates the extent to which victims and beneficiaries participate in decision-making regarding reparations, defines the types of reparations available to victims and beneficiaries, and highlights difficulties in implementation.

Previous
Previous

Amicus Curiae Brief to the Constitutional Court of Colombia

Next
Next

Amicus Curiae Brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia