negate the roles of other approaches? How do we retain the humility and accountability to recognise that sexual and gender-based violence is a complex problem, with heterogeneous victims and survivors and multiple experiences? How do we ensure that we do not allow our lenses and frameworks to crowd out the needs and preferences of victims? 30. What role might communal accountability play in addressing sexual and gender-based violence as has been the case in certain contexts in Iraq and South Sudan? 31. To what extent do the temporal limitations of international criminal justice preclude consideration of historical antecedents to both conflict and the societal and global norms that give rise to the proliferation of sexual and gender-based violence? Can we address sexual and gender-based violence in conflict without a consideration of sexual and gender-based violence before conflict? 32. In light of the broad networks of complicity in many contemporary and historical conflicts, how might justice mechanisms address corporate complicity in conflict? Which mechanisms or courts are best placed to address this? Should courts in the host states of multinational corporations bear responsibility for this accountability? Should regional and sub-regional courts be strengthened and capacitated to address corporate complicity? 33. How might accountability mechanisms better address sexual and gender-based violence committed by private military contractors? 34. Was the Hissène Habré case a landmark for international justice in Africa? To what extent is the model of the Extraordinary African Chambers replicable? What logistical, legal, political and financial issues emerge in considering it as a model? 35. How might reparation and redress be more comprehensively considered? How do issues of land and inheritance interact with some of the narrower conceptions of reparations that often dominate reparations discussions in international criminal justice? How might broader redress, particularly in the context of sexual and gender-based violence, provide for greater gender equity and independence for women? How might adequate attention to normalised notions of gender and sexual violence prior to conflict shift approaches to reparations? 36. Who is left out in contemporary approaches to justice? Relationships with and disruptions of patriarchy 37. How does the way in which sexual and gender-based violence are discussed reflect patriarchal conceptions? 38. How does cultural context interact with sexual violence? How does globalised rape culture interact with the various contexts in which accountability processes are playing out? 39. How is sexual and gender-based violence normalised in societies? How does this interact with the concepts of war and peace, and how helpful are the distinctions between war and peace in light of this? 40. How do the distinctions between war and peace reflect patriarchal framings? If sexual and gender-based violence is an ongoing physical, mental and psychological war on the bodies of women and people with marginalised gender identities, how is framing conflict in relation to the commencement of cessation of armed hostilities reflective of conflict? Questions of efficacy and process 41. How might reparations be made more of a priority in international justice? What is required to promote efficiency in terms of reparations? 42. In some contexts, as was the case in Rwanda, the numbers of victims and perpetrators are so expansive that institutions struggle to prosecute. How can international criminal justice respond to this problem? How can domestic jurisdictions respond to this problem? What other mechanisms or processes might be engaged in addressing contexts of such high incidences of sexual and gender-based violence? Questions answered and unanswered /27