6 The particular course of actions that might apply would depend upon the situation in any particular country: the problems produced by Argentina’s “dirty war” are very different from the epidemic violence of the Zimbabwean War of Liberation. Nonetheless, it is a complicated matter to decide upon the width of a compensation programme. As Lutz comments, “One might argue that it is impossible to restore former victims of atrocious violations of human rights to the positions they were in beforehand, and that therefore creating a system to compensate them is fundamentally misguided. Under this view, one could still advocate that former victims be given necessary medical or psychological care, and other benefits to assist them in meeting their individual needs, not as compensation for their suffering but because their conditions entitle them to the aid and comfort that such services or benefits provide.” (Lutz.1989.p202) Thus, for both of the schema described above it would be possible to produce reparative programmes that met the compensation criteria, or the rehabilitative criteria, or even both. For the UN Commission’s scheme, medical and psychological assistance could be provided to victims in most of the categories described, and one could ignore altogether the notion that reparative damages should be made for the violations suffered. The system to be adopted will depend on a range of factors, and will vary from context to context.9 However, apart from the problems of deciding upon which human rights violations are deserving of compensation and rehabilitation, there are also problems about upon what basis to make the awards, which is also an area that has received a certain amount of consideration. In view of the recent developments in the administration of the War Victims Compensation Fund, it is worth devoting some time to this issue. Compensation Guidelines The matter of compensation guidelines has been well covered by Lutz(1989), and much of the following discussion derives from her article. As Lutz points out, there are a series of questions to be answered in fashioning model guidelines for the awarding of compensation for human rights violations. Her comments apply equally to the award of financial compensation and rehabilitative assistance, and hence no distinction is drawn between these. Lutz summarises the pertinent questions as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. who is entitled to compensation? for what categories of loss or damage should compensation be paid? from whom may compensation be sought? when may a person seek compensation? what procedures should be followed in awarding damages? For a more detailed discussion of these points, see Lutz (1989), “After the Elections: Compensating Victims of Human Rights Abuses”, in E.L. Lutz, H.Hannam, & K.J.Burke, (eds), “New Directions in Human Rights” , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; see also United Nations (1994), “Report of the Panel of Experts Appointed to Assist the United Nations Compensation Commission in Matters Concerning Compensation for Mental Pain and Anguish”, Geneva: United Nations; and also Espersen & Genefke(1994), “Considerations concerning criteria for financial compensation to victims of torture, Copenhagen: IRCT. 9