THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 2005 UN BASIC PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ON THE RIGHT TO A REMEDY AND REPARATION

and reparation. This nature of the Basic Principles and Guidelines makes them an attractive tool for international bodies in their law enforcement practice related to ensuring the right to a remedy and reparation.


INTRODUCTION. The research analyzes the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (Basic Principles and Guidelines) of December
. The Article examines the stages of the adoption of this document, the concept, structure, basic provisions, as well as the importance for the development of modern international law, particularly in the field of human rights protection and international humanitarian law. Consequently, the Article provides a detailed analysis of the approach to the central subject of this document, that is, the right to a remedy and reparation, which is expressed in practical application by universal and regional bodies on human rights and in the field of humanitarian law. In this regard, the position of the right to a remedy and reparation in the complex of human rights is determined, as well as their interconnection and relation to each other. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical researches of the Russian and foreign experts in the field of international law have been analyzed in this very Article as well as the normative documents, recommendations, and decisions of the treaty bodies on human rights within the UN system, the law enforcement practice of universal and regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies for the protection of human rights and in the field of international humanitarian law have also been studied. Such methods of scientific cognition as analysis and synthesis, the generalization method, the system-structural method, as well as the historical-legal and legal-technical methods have also been applied in this research. RESEARCH RESULTS. The Article reveals the significance and impact of the mechanism developed in the Basic Principles and Guidelines, in general, on the international human rights system. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are an international document, developed with the best practice of existing legal systems. It was adopted unanimously through the consensus reached by all parties concerned. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are aimed at codifying the provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation enshrined in various international treaties and as well as at developing a unified approach to these rights. Thus, the said international instrument does not create any new rules but classifies and uniforms the set of provisions on the right to a remedy

Introduction
T he rule of law is the key to ensuring the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels. The rule of law cannot exist where human rights are not respected, and no one can talk about the protection of human rights without the rule of law.
Consequently, the rule of law is a way of implementing human rights not only in theory, but mainly in practice. The rule of law and human rights are aimed at achieving justice and a dignified life for every person without any discrimination. Thus, the rule of law and human rights are interrelated, mutually reinforcing each other and inseparable.
Given the multidimensional nature of the obligation to ensure human rights, the State is obliged not only to prevent possible violations of human rights, but also to avoid actions, such violations may entail, as well as respect, protect and fulfill human rights. The principle of justice permeates all international human rights treaties without exception.
The efforts to ensure and protect human rights have an essential role in maintaining international law and order. Furthermore, the international system for the protection of human rights cannot be considered effective without the possibility of persons whose rights have been violated in one way or another to demand for the redress through free access to remedy and reparation. This provision is equally applicable to the norms of international humanitarian law, which are aimed at protecting human rights in conditions of armed conflict.
Thus, it is necessary to provide every person with legal remedies, which include access to an independent, effective and impartial judicial process 1 , recognition by the State of the fact of human rights violations, the search for the truth, bringing the perpetrators of the violation to justice, as well as reparation for the damage caused to victims.
The significance attached by the international community to the right to a remedy and the right to reparation has been reflected in the enshrining of these rights in various international treaties on the human rights, either through direct fixation or through broad interpretation. The latter often refers to the right to reparation, which does not appear in the texts of several international treaties.
The right to a remedy is enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights, which is understood as a set of the following fundamental human rights in  11 .
While the international human rights treaties adopted in different years, include measures aimed at ensuring effective remedies for victims of human rights violations, this very right (right to a remedy) has been included in different ways. Thus, some of its essential parts can be divided and enshrined in different Articles or remedies can be included in the norms concerning fair trial or reparation. In this regard, Art. 8 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law". However, effective remedy of those violated implies not only the right to access to justice, but also reparation for the victim of human rights violations. Consequently, there is a way for the broader legal interpretation.
Further, the elements of remedies can be dispersed throughout the treaty like in the case of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has different Articles for the right to a fair trial (Art. 6), for the right to an effective remedy (Art. 13) and for just satisfaction (Art. 41).
The positive dynamics in concluding the right to a remedy and the right to reparation for violations of human rights in a wide range of international legal documents necessitated the development of a unified approach to these rights. In this regard, a decision to prepare a separate document was made within the UN. One of the main purposes to adopt the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law was to unify the understanding of the rights to a remedy and reparation a quite different in various human rights treaties. So, this treaty codified the best practice of States as well as international instruments without creating any new rule.

Process of development and adoption of Basic Principles and Guidelines of the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Law
The necessity to define and classify provisions relating to ensuring each person or group of persons the right to remedy and to reparation required from the international community to develop a unified document that could be adopted not only by various universal and regional bodies, but also by State structures.
Let us take a quick look at the phases of the development and adoption of the Basic Principles and Guidelines.
The UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (hereinafter referred to as "the Sub-Commission") 12 has been involved since 1989 13 in the development of the unified document in the field of providing victims of violations of human rights and norms of international humanitarian law with remedies and reparation. The activity of the Sub-Commission on the preparation of the document was carried out under the direct su- pervision of the UN Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the HRC") and was also included in broader studies on the strengthening of justice and the international system for the protection of human rights in the transition period.
Several human rights non-governmental organizations, such as the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and Redress Trust, as well as some States, primarily representing Latin America (first of these is Chile) were proactive in the process of drafting the document. Western European States had a lesser active position in that field. While negotiations on the document being developed were open, all interested parties could freely express their positions, which demonstrated their willingness and interest in obtaining the result.
Also, in 1989, in accordance with Resolution 1989/13 of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Dutch lawyer and professor of international law Theodor van Boven was entrusted to conduct a study on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation of victims of serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and on the possibility of developing basic principles and guidelines. 14 In 1990, Van Boven presented a preliminary report on the results of a one-year study, and in 1993 -a final report, the main provisions of which were included in the developed draft principles on restitution, compensation and rehabilitation.
The 1993 report considered the positions provided by non-governmental organizations and experts from various States, especially those, where gross and massive violations were of a larger scale 15 .
The final report was sent to the HRC for consideration, and in 1994 States and NGOs were invited to study and discuss it. The Special Rapporteur amended the draft document according to the comments received as well as to the results of working meetings organized jointly by the International Commission of Jurists and the Maastricht Center for Human Rights. The final version of this draft was sent to the HRC for consideration in 1997.
It should also be noted that the provisions on the State responsibility and reparation, enshrined in the 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts as well as the norms of the 1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, were under consideration at the development of the Basic Principles and Guidelines. The Declaration was developed in the framework of a regional meeting in Ottawa (Canada) and was adopted at the 7th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.
However, let us return to the study of the provisions of Theodor van Boven's 1993 report [Crawford, Pellet, Olleson 2010: 579]. The report recognized the impossibility of fully eliminating and redressing the consequences of serious and massive violations of human rights, as well as the disproportionality of any reparation [Keburiya 2016:125-127]. The need for special attention to the search for truth, remedy and bringing to justice those responsible for human rights violations was stated also in that document 16 .
The provisions of this report by Theodor van Boven were reflected in the draft principles, which consisted of three parts: basic principles, forms of reparation, and procedural elements. According to the provisions of this draft in terms of determining the basic principles, it is an obligation of the State to provide victims of human rights violations with remedies, including the right to reparation. The second part of the document established the concept of the reparation and a classification of its forms (restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition). Further, the procedures and mechanisms for ensuring fair, effective and prompt access to justice are defined in the last part of the draft.
The next significant milestone in the development of the draft Basic Principles and Guidelines was the establishment by HRC Resolution 1998/43 of the position of Independent Expert, which was occupied by Professor M. Sheriff Bassiouni, formerly Chairman of the Drafting Committee in Ottawa and actively involved in the preparation of the draft Basic Principles and Guidelines. In 1999, another draft of the document was presented to the HRC, and in 2000, it was presented in its final form 17 . At the same time, the draft was revised for the third time.
After the presentation of the draft to the HRC, it did not send it to a vote, but referred it to States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations for consideration. Nevertheless, several States were interested in suspending the final adoption of the draft Basic Principles and Guidelines before the UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance is held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001.
The appointment of M. Sheriff Bassiouni was followed by a series of consultations with experts from both governments and non-governmental organizations and resulted in the inclusion of the provisions related to international humanitarian law in the draft 18 . In addition, it became necessary to make the text more laconic and clearer. It should be noted that the process of preparing the draft did not move according to a specific plan but considered every proposal from States and NGOs. Thus, an open forum for negotiations was provided, with the goal of ultimately developing and agreeing on a document that would be most acceptable to all parties concerned.
At the same time, returning to the issue of including provisions relating to international humanitarian law in the draft, we would like to mention the following. The initial drafts of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, prior to the second version, presented in 1995, remained within the limits of international human rights law. All the drafts followed already contained the norms of international humanitarian law, which, however, did not find the approval of some States, whose claims were mainly reduced to a different way of development of human rights law and humanitarian law and their special nature. The latter led to differences in the complex of rights and obligations that each of these branches of international law imposes on States.
The main difference between these branches of international law lies in the specifics of the human rights measures proposed by humanitarian law, which are applied only in situations of armed conflict [Rusinova 2006: 11-12]. In other words, opponents of the unification of the norms of the two areas of law advocated the adoption of two separate documents. However, this position still did not find wide support among the parties involved in the process. According to most of the parties concerned, the focus of the Basic Principles and Guidelines is on the protection of human rights, while this document does not specify the legal distinction between violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
It should be noted that, even though these branches of international law indeed have different ways of developing, they intersect in many provisions and, no less important, provide additional protection measures for victims, although using often different terminology [McCracken 2005:77-79].
In this regard, the position of the International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion in the case "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" should be cited as an example. In this advisory opinion the Court noted that international humanitarian law and international human rights law complement each other, and, despite different legal sources, they cannot be mutually exclusive 19 . Both branches of international law have developed in the context of the consolidation of customary and treaty law, as well as general principles of law, which are also sources of international law.
It is also necessary to note the following point: in the title of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, the term "gross violations of international human rights law" is used, but already in Principle 26, the inadmissibility of restricting any rights or obligations provided for by national legislation or international law is especially noted, and the application of the right to a remedy and reparation, as set out in this document, to victims of any violation of international human rights law and humanitarian law. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is optimal to use the term "violation of human rights" rather than "serious violations of human rights" to be able to cover a wider range of human rights violations that entail the victim's right to claim protection for damages. As to the serious violations of humanitarian law, this document means the crimes under international law.
When developing the idea that the Basic Principles and Guidelines should include serious violations of international humanitarian law, the authors of this document referenced to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning the meaning of the war crimes. In this regard, several corresponding norms have been included in the Basic Principles and Guidelines on legal consequences coming from the international crimes. Thus, this document obliges States to investigate and to prosecute the person responsible for the violations and if the person is found guilty, he or she must be punished (para. 4). "To that end, where so provided in an applicable treaty or under other international law obligations, States shall incorporate or otherwise implement within their domestic law appropriate provisions for universal jurisdiction" (para. 5).
In addition, there was some inconsistency during the development of the draft Basic Principles and Guidelines, between the provisions of different legal systems regarding the right to collective reparation, which was incorporated into the draft. Thus, the continental legal system is not familiar with class action in court, and the common law is not aware of the possibility of a civil claim in criminal proceedings.
As a result of the compromise reached by the parties, the final text of the Basic Principles and Guidelines considered the provisions of the continental legal system, common law and, to some extent, the norms relevant to Islamic law.
On 13 April 2005, nearly sixteen years after the beginning of the drafting process, the UN Human Rights Commission 20 , at its 61st session in Geneva, adopted the final version of the Basic Principles and Guidelines with 40 votes "for", with 13 abstentions 21 . Its noteworthy that there were no votes against the adoption of the document. Thus, its consensual nature was confirmed. On December 16, 2005, by Resolution No. 60/147, the UN General Assembly supported and adopted the final version of the Basic Principles.

Structure of the Basic Principles and Guidelines
Let us move on to consider the structure of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, and then determine the level of significance of this document for international law, as well as the practical application of its provisions by various universal and regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
The structure of the Basic Principles and Guidelines is as follows: Preamble, 13 chapters, combining 27 Articles (principles). The Preamble defines the goals and objectives of this document, including emphasizing that "the Basic Principles and Guidelines contained herein are directed at gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law which, by their very grave nature, constitute an affront to human dignity".
As for the international humanitarian law the Basic Principles and Guidelines in its Preamble refers to the Art. 3   Article 8 of the Rome Statute gives the meaning of "war crimes" defining them as serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict or in an armed conflict not of an international character. Further, war crimes meaning "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention" are: wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; taking of hostages.
Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict 25 include, among others, attacks against the civilian population as well as civilian objects, killing or wounding surrendered combatant, using poison or poisoned weapons, poisonous or other gases, improper using emblems or flags, pillage or other taking of property contrary to international humanitarian law [Sandoval-Villalba 2009: 243-281].
In cases of armed conflicts not of the international character, serious violations are "any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; taking of hostages; the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judge-ment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable" 26 .
In its Art. 75 concerning reparations for the victims of serious violations, the Rome Statute reflects the language of the draft of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on this issue: "The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation".
The framework of the Basic Principles and Guidelines has been developed with an emphasis on the obligation of States to provide victims of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law with remedies and reparation. However, even though it is the State that is the primary subject of international law, the possibility of unlawful actions on the part of international organizations cannot be ignored. The Basic Principles and Guidelines do consider the responsibilities of international organizations, for example, Principle 15 states the following: "…In cases where a person, a legal person, or other entity is found liable for reparation to a victim, such party should provide reparation to the victim or compensate the State if the State has already provided reparation to the victim".
The Basic Principles and Guidelines are a document focused on the position of the victim of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Regarding the definition of the victim, even at the stage of drafting the text of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, some controversy arose around the inclusion in the concept of "victim" not only individuals but groups of individuals, collectively. Which means that the person could be understood as a victim individually as well as in a group or collectively. In the final version of the document, the concept of "victim" is given in Chapter V, in Principles 8 and 9. Thus, the wording of Principle 8 stipulates that "victims are persons who individually or collectively suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that constitute gross violations of international human rights law, or serious violations of international humanitarian law". In addition, already in the Preamble, we can observe "that contemporary forms of victimization, while essentially directed against persons, may nevertheless also be directed against groups of persons who are targeted collectively". Within the meaning of the same Principle 8 of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, "victim" is understood not only as direct victim or person who was directly damaged, but also indirect victims. Let us refer to the text of the mentioned Principle in this context: "the term "victim" also includes the immediate family or dependents of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization". While the definition of potential victims is not explicitly enshrined in the Basic Principles and Guidelines, it does imply the obligation of States to implement such policies that include compliance with international law with national legislation and human rights policies, thereby preventing the possibility of human rights violations [Shelton 2015: 60-61].
As noted further in the Preamble, this document does not replace existing norms of international law and domestic law, but only proposes mechanism, procedures and methods for fulfilling the responsibilities of States and of the international community in general with respect to providing victims of violations of human rights and humanitarian norms with remedy and reparation for the harm suffered.
Further, let us note that the following wording is enshrined in the title of the Basic Principles and Guidelines: "gross violations of international human rights law". Nevertheless, Principle 26 of this document emphasizes the inadmissibility of limiting any rights or obligations enshrined in domestic or international law, including the right to reparation. Thus, the drafters of the document concluded that it is advisable to use the term "violation of human rights" rather than "serious violations of human rights", since any violation leads to adverse consequences, regardless of the severity.
According to Principle 11 (section VII) of the Basic Principles and Guidelines "remedies for gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law include the victim's right to the following as provided for under international law: (a) Equal and effective access to justice; (b) Adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered; (c) Access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms" 27 .
It is worth noting that, even though the right to reparation for harm suffered is enshrined in several international treaties in the field of human rights protection and international humanitarian law, for the first time only the Basic Principles and Guidelines in one document listed in the most complete form the rights of victims of access to justice and to reparation for harm suffered [McCracken 2005:77-79].

Forms of reparation for the violations of human rights established in the Basic Principles and Guidelines
Particular attention in the document is paid to the forms of reparation, namely: restitution, compensation, satisfaction, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition. The first two forms are material, while the last three are non-material forms of reparation for harm suffered. Let us study briefly the definition of each of the five identified forms of reparation.
Restitution (lat. "restitutio in integrum" meaning "restoration in the previous state", "in the previous rights"). The Basic Principles and Guidelines define it as the ability to "restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate: restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return to one's place of residence, restoration of employment and return of property" (Principle 19).
Restitution as a form of reparation was already known to the ancient jurists. Thus, according to Roman law, if it is possible to restore the violated relationship or return the thing to the owner in the same condition, reparation for damage could be made in the form of restitution. According to the judgement of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case concerning the Factory at Chorzуw, restitution is the core aim of reparation: "The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act-a principle which seems to be established by 27  international practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral tribunals-is that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out al1 the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in al1 probability, have existed if that act had not been committed" 28 . The Basic Principles and Guidelines highlight the restoration of citizenship as one of the examples of reparation. In this regard, if a person is deprived of citizenship in violation of international law, restitution can be achieved by restoring citizenship. This formula has been recognized, for example, by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances 29 as well as the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 30 .
When it is forced displacement of a person abroad of the State of citizenship or permanent residence caused by threats to his or her life and health, the State is obliged not only to eliminate such risks, but also to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of the person and his life, as well as create conditions for the return of such faces to their homeland 31 . The practice of international courts to some extent correlates with the right to return to the homeland, recognized by the international law, in particular the right of the refugees to return to the State they were forced to leave 32 .
In cases of deprivation of property in violation of human rights, restitution means, in general, the return of property. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the most appropri-ate form of reparation is the return of property 33 . The UN Human Rights Committee also recommended property restitution, i.e. return in the same condition prior to the violation or, if it is not possible, compensation 34 . In addition, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights recommended the use of restitution as reparation for human rights violations when the robbery of the victim's property 35 .
As it was previously said, since restitution is aimed at restoring a situation existed before violation, it cannot be applied in every case. Article 35 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts names "a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to make restitution, that is, to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided and to the extent that restitution: a) is not materially impossible; b) does not involve a burden out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation". If there is no possibility for restitution or it is insufficient for the full reparation, as a rule, compensation is paid based on a financial assessment of the damage caused (Art. 36 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts). But if there is no way to apply neither restitution nor compensation, "a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to give satisfaction for the injury caused by that act insofar as it cannot be made good by restitution or compensation"

(part 1 of Art. of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts).
Restitution is the first form of reparation that should be applied to restore violated human rights. However, if it cannot be applied, other forms of reparation are implemented.
Compensation (lat. "compensatio" meaning "action of compensating", "remuneration", "equalization") is also a material form of reparation for damage caused to the physical or psychological state of a person. In the text of the Basic Principles and Guidelines, the definition of compensation is given in Principle 20, saying "compensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case, resulting from gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as: a) physical or mental harm; b) lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits; c) material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential; d) moral damage; e) costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicine and medical services, and psychological and social services".
The Preamble of the Basic Principles and Guidelines mentions the need to establish, strengthen and expand special compensation funds aimed at providing prompt and adequate payments to victims of human rights violations. In addition, we shall also state that compensation, despite the frequency of its application, should not be equated with the right to reparation, since it is part of it, and not itself.
In its judgement in the case concerning the Factory at Chorzуw, the Permanent Court of International Justice defined compensation as a substitute for restitution when the latter cannot be applied. The amount of compensation must be equivalent to restitution in kind, in other words, the amount of what was lost due to violation: "Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind would bear; the award, if need be, of damages for loss sustained which would not be covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it-such are the principles which should serve to determine the amount of compensation due for an act contrary to international law" 36 .
In addition, damage to individuals should be the basis for determining the amount of compensation measures. It should be noted that compensation for material and non-material damage, especially for unlawful deprivation of life or imprisonment, is also payable. Thus, in the famous case of the British ship Lusitania, the need for compensation was determined as follows: "It is a general rule of both the civil and the common law that every invasion of private right imports an injury and that for every such injury the law gives a remedy" 37 .
Of all the forms of reparation for damage, it is compensation that is most often used in international practice. According to Art. 36 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which is dedicated to the notion of compensation, "The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution" and "the compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established".
This non-exhaustive criterion for determining compensation allows the development of methods for financially assessing the damage caused, which cannot be physically seen. The pain and suffering endured by a victim of a human rights violation are also subject to economic assessment. The concept of compensation confirms the obvious provision, according to which the amount of compensation payments should be proportional to the violation with considering moral damage.
International jurisprudence is unanimous in providing compensation to victims of loss of income. In cases where the loss of a job is due to a violation of human rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, for example, without calculating the amount of compensation, recommends to States to compensate for the lost earnings based on the salary that the victim would receive if his rights were not violated 38 .

Московский журнал международного права • 2 • 2021
The economic consequences of human rights violations are so various that it is difficult to classify them for compensation purposes. International jurisprudence seeks to create standards for determining the exact amount of compensation to be paid to victims of offenses that have suffered real losses. They can vary in different legal systems, which indicates the uncertainty, therefore, the international practice is in constant development in this matter. It follows from the practice of universal and, to a greater extent, regional human rights courts that compensation, as a rule, excludes damage that is not subject to economic assessment [Gray 1987:33-34]. If pecuniary damage exists, no exact figure from the victim is required to determine compensation [Kaplow, Shavell 1996:191-209]. In the absence of precise information on quantitative indicators of the amount of damage suffered, compensation is provided based on the principle of fairness [Cornejo Chavez 2017:372-392].
Non-pecuniary damage is sometimes easily calculated economically, which comes to the cost of medical or psychological treatment, drugs, etc. However, it can also be measured based on the principle of "equality", which is an accepted method of assessing damage in comparative jurisprudence, subject to the availability of appropriate evidence.
The first in the list of non-material forms of reparation in the Basic Principles and Guidelines is rehabilitation (lat. "rehabilitatio" meaning "rehabilitation"), that "should include medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services" (Principle 21).
Rehabilitation is guaranteed by the provisions of many universal treaties and declarations. The 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in its para.1 of Art. 14 states that "each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible". The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Art. 23 and Art. 24 also stipulates the need for States to promote international cooperation in the exchange of information on the possibilities of providing children with rehabilitation measures, including medical and psychological treatment. In addition, Art. 39 of this Convention declares that "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child".
Further, the 2006 UN International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in Art. 24 notes that "the right to obtain reparation … covers material and moral damages and, where appropriate, other forms of reparation such as: a) restitution; b) rehabilitation; c) satisfaction, including restoration of dignity and reputation; d) guarantees of non-repetition".
Rehabilitation measures are often viewed as part of compensation. In this regard, the violating State is required to provide an amount of money to cover the victim's rehabilitation when paying compensation. This provision is reflected in the mentioned above para. 1 of Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture, according to which the State provides compensation, "including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible".
Here, it should be noted that rehabilitation is provided not only in the case of physical or psychological suffering of victims, but it can be of a social nature as well, when it comes to, for example, rehabilitation of victim's dignity, social position and general legal status. Some of these rehabilitative measures, such as legal status rehabilitation, are carried out, for example, through the removal of convictions or annulment of unlawful sentences 39 .
Further, the document establishes such a form of reparation as satisfaction (lat. "satis" meaning "enough", "sufficient", and "facere" meaning "to do"; "satisfactio", "satisfacio" meaning "satisfaction", "ask for forgiveness", "apologize"), which, in the document under consideration, means a whole range of measures: "a) effective measures aimed at the cessation of continuing violations; b) verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth to the extent that such disclosure does not cause further harm or threaten the safety and interests of the victim, the victim's relatives, witnesses, or persons who have intervened to assist the victim or prevent the occurrence of further violations; c) the search for the whereabouts of the disappeared, for the identities of the children abducted, and for the bodies of those killed, and assistance in the recovery, identification and reburial of the bodies in accordance with the expressed or presumed wish of the victims, or the cultural practices of the families and communities; d) an official declaration or a judicial decision restoring the dignity, the reputation and the rights of the victim and of persons closely connected with the victim; e) public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility; f) judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations; g) commemorations and tributes to the victims; h) inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred in international human rights law and international humanitarian law training and in educational material at all levels" (Principle 22).
In a number of cases, international courts in their decisions determined that the recognition of the fact of violation of human rights is already satisfaction in itself. Meanwhile, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in cases of gross and massive violations of human rights, recognition or condemnation is not enough to provide fair reparation for the damage suffered by the victims 40 . Therefore, adequate, in other words, sufficient compensation is needed.
The Basic Principles and Guidelines, in general, provide an extensive list of measures that States must take to ensure that reparations for victims of human rights violations are satisfactory, including making public the facts of human rights violations, ending ongoing violations, searching for missing persons, identification and reburial of the deceased. Considering the importance of not only the search for the truth, but also the recognition of the fact of a violation of human rights, the obligation to bear responsibility for it seems to be a key principle of investigation and establishment of the truth in each specific case of violation. In this vein, the Basic Principles and Guidelines recommend that human rights organizations publish their reports for the public to access or so, to be transparent.
It is worth noting the activities of Truth Commissions, which are usually created by the governments of States and are temporary non-judicial bodies to investigate the facts of massive and gross violations of human rights, for example, committed during civil wars. Victims of such serious violations of human rights, including their relatives and the whole society, have the right to know the truth about the events of the past, the cause and consequences of these events, to establish the whereabouts of the missing or killed persons. The perpetrators of human rights violations must be identified and held responsible 41 . In addition, the Truth Commissions are adopting recommendations for the establishment of special programs aimed at reparation of victims of human rights violations [Bishnu 2017:192-230].
Even though public apology is symbolic, it is addressed to present and future generations as a clear indication that the violation should not happen again. This is especially important in cases of violations of the rights of groups or a large number of victims, sometimes impersonal, or in cases of serious violations in the past 42 . Thus, the main task of satisfaction as a form of reparation is to restore the dignity, psychological health, honor and reputation of the victims of violations of international human rights norms [Bantekas, Oette 2013: 547-550].
Non-material forms of reparation, except for rehabilitation, as mentioned above, in the Art. 37 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Meanwhile, the Draft Articles on State Responsibility does not value satisfactory measures. They are, nevertheless, important in the field of human rights protection, where in conditions of inequality between the State and the person whose rights are violated, the State has a significant role to investigate violations, as well as to establish the reasons that led to the violation.
Finally, guarantees of non-repetition are enshrined in the list of forms of reparation, which are generally structural measures aimed at helping to prevent future violations of human rights and humanitarian law. These include measures such as: "(a) ensuring effective civilian control of military and security forces; (b) ensuring that all civilian and military proceedings abide by international standards of due process, fairness and impartiality; (c) strengthening the independence of the judiciary; (d) protecting persons in the legal, medical and health-care professions, the media and other related professions, and human rights defenders; (e) providing, on a priority and continued basis, human rights and international humanitarian law education to all sectors of society and training for law enforcement officials as well as military and security forces; (f) promoting the observance of codes of conduct and ethical norms, in particular international standards, by public servants, including law enforcement, correctional, media, medical, psychological, social service and military personnel, as well as by economic enterprises; (g) promoting mechanisms for preventing and monitoring social conflicts and their resolution; (h) reviewing and reforming laws contributing to or allowing gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law" (Principle 23).
The guarantees of non-repetition, like satisfaction, are not always suitable for application at the interstate level, but their importance in the field of human rights protection can hardly be overestimated. The measures enshrined in the Basic Principles and Guidelines are mainly aimed at strengthening national institutions under the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary and civilian control of military and security forces.
Part two of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility includes Chapter II "Reparation for Injury", which examines the forms of reparation that can be provided by the State responsible for the violation: restitution, compensation and satisfaction (Art. 34). The Basic Principles and Guidelines differ in the definition of reparations from the text of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility on several conceptual points. Thus, the termination of the violation is included in the concept of satisfaction as one of the forms of compensation for damage in the Basic Principles and Guidelines, while in the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, it together with non-repetition of the violation, stands separately and independently of compensation for damage (Art. 30 -"Cessation and non-repetition" and Art. 31 -"Reparation"). The cessation of the violation, while not reparation, is nevertheless part of the general obligation to comply with international law. More of it, in the opinion of the International Law Commission, the termination of violation of international obligations and guarantees for non-repetition of what happened are aspects of the restoration of legal relations affected by the violation (Art. 30, para. 1, b).
Sometimes the termination of the violation overlaps with restitution, especially in cases of deprivation of property. Yet, unlike restitution, the cessation of violations is not limited by proportionality. Thus, restitution is applicable only if possible, and cessation of violations can be used in any case. In the same vein, the Commentary to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility notes that guarantees of non-repetition can be realized in practice both through satisfaction and both satisfaction and restitution [Crawford 2002: 196-201].
While the obligation to cease a continuing violation in general does not require interpretation and clarification, guarantees of non-repetition can take a variety of forms, indicating the various measures necessary for the State to take to ensure the measures to prevent further violations.
Non-repetition guarantees also cover structural changes that can be achieved through the adoption of appropriate legislative measures. The UN Human Rights Committee, in its 2016 Guidelines on measures of reparation under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 43 , reaffirmed the need for legislation as a first step towards achieving a guarantee of non-repetition of human rights violations and in addition to bringing the State's national legislation in conformity with the provisions international law.
To prevent further violations, persons at risk of violation of their rights should be provided with special protection measures. Such persons include human rights defenders, media workers and other persons working in the field of human rights protection. According to the position of the UN Human Rights Committee expressed in the case of Suarez de Guerrero v. Colombia, ensuring the effective observance of the right to life requires States to amend their domestic legislation to bring it in line with Art. 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 44 Summarizing all the above, we shall note that all five forms of reparation for victims of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law can be applied both independently and in combination with several or even all other forms of reparation 45 . Moreover, recourse to only one of the forms significantly limits the overall effectiveness of reparation. In other words, the most expedient seems to be the simultaneous and combined use of several forms of reparation, considering, of course, the details of each specific case. Only in that way it is possible to achieve full and comprehensive reparation for victims of violations both individually and collectively 46 .

Basic Principles and Guidelines in the Practice of Universal and Regional Judicial and Quasi-judicial Bodies
While the Basic Principles and Guidelines are not legally binding, this document is the first comprehensive codification of the rights of victims of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law to a remedy, reparation and access to justice.
The Basic Principles and Guidelines have provided guidance to universal and regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in the context of providing the reparation for the victims for the harm they suffered. The high appraisal of this document was expressed, for example, by the International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as "the ICC") in its judgment of January 18, 2008 in the case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. In this judgment, the Court, facing the lack of a definition of the concept of a victim in the Rome Statute, referred to the provision of Principle 8 of the Basic Principles and Guidelines as "guidance" 47 , according to which "victim" refers to a person who has suffered direct harm, individually or collectively, directly or indirectly, in various forms (physical or psychological harm, mental suffering and economic loss) 48 .
Reflecting the specifics of reparation for harm suffered by a group of persons, it is worth noting that in the aforementioned case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the ICC for the first time developed a procedure for a comprehensive mechanism for the implementation of collective reparation for damage, including the preparation of a list of potential victims, an assessment of the extent of damage caused to victims, an analysis of the scope of responsibility of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, and if necessary, revision of the monetary amount of reparation 49 .
International universal and regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights are often guided by the Basic Principles and Guidelines, including for determining the form of reparation. For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its decisions regarding reparations for victims of human rights violations repeatedly refers to the provisions of the Basic Principles and Guidelines. It is noteworthy that the Court began to refer to this document at the stage of development of its draft [Rubio-Marin, Sandoval 2011: 1062-1091] 50 .
In general, we can state that the positions of the regional systems of human rights protection (European, Inter-American and African) 51 do not contra-dict the provisions laid down in the Basic Principles and Guidelines [Solntsev, Keburiya 2014:16-25].
Thus, Art. 13 of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) guarantees the right to an effective remedy for damages to persons whose rights and freedoms have been violated, and Art. 41 52 contains provisions on just satisfaction for the injured party [Tomuschat 2000[Tomuschat :1409[Tomuschat -1430.
The 1969 American Convention on Human Rights establishes the obligation to pay "just satisfaction" (Arts. 10 and 21) 53 and the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights also provides for the right of deprived peoples to receive adequate compensation (para. 2 of Art. 21) 54 . In addition, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights developed the 2003 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, which provide for the right of victims of human rights violations to achieve remedies and reparation 55 .
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), when dealing with remedies and reparation is guided by the concept of justice, considering the circumstances of the very case. The ECtHR, when establishing the amount and form of reparation, considers not only the positions of the applicant and the violating State, but the public interest of the case. At the same time, there is an obvious positive moment in the prac-tice of the ECtHR, namely, that the Court considers such determining factors in each case as the actual circumstances of the violation, as well as the political and economic situation not only in a particular State, but in the region where the victim lives 56 .
Unlike the ECtHR, which includes reparations on the merits, and the IACHR and the IACtHR consider claims for remedies and reparation in separate proceedings, the ACHPR and the ACtHPR, in turn, consider claims for remedies and reparation, either on the merits or, in some cases, in separate proceedings. In addition, claim for remedies and reparation should be submitted to the ECtHR separately from the main complaint, while in the Inter-American and African systems for the protection of human rights, the claim is included in the main complaint [Abashidze, Keburia, Solntsev 2016:1-10].
The strength of the Inter-American human rights bodies is in their flexibility and readiness to respond promptly to violations, including in the development of a plan of measures for the violating State in each case to provide the most effective redress.
When determining one or another measure of reparation, the IACHR and IACtHR consider not only reasonableness and fairness, but also the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the victim's life and the possible benefits missed by him/ her due to the violation 57 .
As mentioned above, none of the regional systems for the protection of human rights has developed a uniform approach to the calculating the amount of compensation. However, the only precedent in which the ACHPR departed from the practice of not determining a specific amount of compensation is the case of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v. Egypt, when decided the exact amount of compensation. However, the ACHPR did not explain the method of calculation used 58 .
Similar unanimity is found in the approaches of the human rights treaty bodies within the UN human rights protection system, as well as in the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council, as evidenced by the documents they adopt, including general comments, decisions on individual reports of human rights violations or materials of the field missions 59 . In this regard, we should also note the Guidelines on measures of reparation under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, developed by the UN Human Rights Committee in 2016, perfectly in line with the Basic Principles and Guidelines 60 .
One of the objectives of the HRC Guidelines is to harmonize the Committee's practice in relation to the right to reparation, as well as to establish criteria for the most effective consideration of individual communications. According to the position of the Human Rights Committee (further -the HRC), only full reparation for damage (in the form of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition) meets the international obligations of States and requirements of the human rights protection system.
The procedure for including a claim for reparation in individual communications is also enshrined in the HRC Guidelines. Thus, persons reporting facts of human rights violations by State bodies and officials should include their claims on the forms of reparation in communications that are brought to the attention of the State. States, in turn, also have the right to comment on the stated claims, which, however, does not affect the final decision of the HRC (para. 4).
According to the HRC, not only direct victims of human rights violations have the right to reparation, but also indirect ones, first, family members and relatives. The Committee proceeds from an understanding of the link between direct and indirect victims, who, although not equally, may still suffer from the consequences of the same violation 61 .
Recognizing in its general comment No. 3 (2012) "Implementation of article 14 by States parties" 62 that a violation of the provisions of the Convention against Torture requires States to take immediate measures to remedy the situation, the UN Committee against While recognizing all five forms of reparations identified in the Basic Principles and Guidelines, the treaty bodies emphasize the guarantees of non-repetition, i.e., measures to be taken by States to create a legal situation and the inadmissibility of systemic violations. Thus, States must bring their national legislation in strict accordance with international law.
Meanwhile, despite the recommendatory nature of decisions made by treaty bodies, including those on a remedy and reparations, it seems useful for all other human rights mechanisms, including the judiciary, to refer to the practice of treaty bodies, as well as to the developed theoretical database of mechanisms.

Conclusion
The protection of human rights is one of the most important areas of current international law, but it is impossible without ensuring every human being with the right to a remedy and reparation in cases when the rights are violated. This concerns not only violations of the human rights, but the crimes committed during the armed conflicts.
The right of victims to a remedy and reparation is one of the most well-established human rights enshrined in universal and regional international treaties as well as at the national level. This cannot be doubted, since without the ability of a person or group of persons to claim remedies for the damage suffered, including restoration of violated rights, the system of human rights protection would not only be ineffective, but would not make sense at all.
The right to reparation, on the one hand, can be viewed as an element of the right to a remedy but, on the other hand, as an independent human right. At the same time, without respecting the right to a remedy, it is not possible to consider issues of reparation. However, while recognizing such a connection between these human rights, it is nevertheless necessary not to equate them.
Based on the said above, we should highlight the following. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are a document that codifies the best practice of States of different legal systems, but it does not create new rules in the field of the right to a remedy and reparation. This document found wide and unanimous support already at the stage of adoption. And subsequently, its high significance, even without mandatory element, was demonstrated by almost all international bodies as they refer to this document when making recommendations or decisions related to ensuring victims of violations of human rights and norms of international humanitarian law with a remedy and reparation.
Therefore, the Basic Principles and Guidelines serve to unify law enforcement practice in relation to the right to a remedy and reparation for harm suffered as well as common understanding of this right by all international actors. Consequently, this document makes a significant contribution to strengthening and enhancing the efficiency of international law in general. In addition, it is especially important to emphasize the focus of this document, aimed primarily not at the position of the State, but at the needs of the victims of violations, which gives them a human-oriented nature.