Jürgen Schurr those suffering from an incurable disease as a consequence of crimes committed during a conflict – will not be able to benefit from reparation. Prioritizing certain groups in receiving reparation could be one way of addressing this risk, and this was done to some extent in South Africa and to a greater extent in Sierra Leone. Delays will create anger and frustration among victims who have been waiting for reparation for years, if not for decades. A transparent process based on consultation can go some way towards addressing potential delays. The establishment of a reparation programme will require some balancing: how much will a government want to spend on a specific transitional justice mechanism – for instance, the prosecution of perpetrators – and how much will be left for reparation so as to make it meaningful? This balance has not always been in favour of victims and reparation, especially if we look at mechanisms set up at the international level – the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Special Court of Sierra Leone – where the emphasis has been on prosecution, and millions of dollars have been spent to hold perpetrators accountable. While this can be an important component of a reparation policy, it has not reflected the commitment made in terms of reparation. Indeed, neither the ICTY, nor the ICTR, nor the Special Court for Sierra Leone has fully addressed the question of reparation. No provision was made for victims to participate and/or to claim reparation, and no reparation programme has been set up alongside the establishment of tribunals, which explains to some extent the lack of acceptance of these mechanisms by victims in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia. Most reparation programmes include the setting up of a fund that will cover different forms of material reparation in the form of compensation, rehabilitation and restitution – material and non-material damages, access to medical care, university fees, etc. Such funds have been set up in different forms in South Africa, Sierra Leone, Peru and Morocco, and have been suggested for Sudan as well as Rwanda, where funds need yet to be established. Compensation or reparation funds will need to have a clear management structure, and consider such issues as how to quantify loss and how to distinguish between the harm done to victims – for example, a torture victim who has suffered one day of torture and another who has been detained and tortured over a year. The disbursement of compensation will need to be addressed, as will the composition of a reparation fund. An important challenge, of course, is the financing of such funds, as the implementation of a reparation programme will be expensive. The international community can play a role, as it has in Sierra 28 International Conference on Transitional Justice, Zimbabwe