Recalde-Vela 201 tion in the proceedings,222 victims do not need to participate in order to benefit from reparations.223 This mechanism is ideal when there are many victims but limited funds, making collective reparations feasible and ideal since they can reach a great number of victims. For instance, in the Lubanga reparations ruling of 2015 only collective reparations were granted by the Appeals Chamber.224 While access to participation in the proceedings—a form of redress for some victims—can be challenging for stateless persons due to documentation issues. It seems accessing reparatory measures is less stringent upon documentation, and therefore there is room for easy access to reparations for stateless persons if in the future there is a case concerning stateless persons who have been victims of violations of the international crimes over which the court has jurisdiction. 5 Conclusion Statelessness can be said to be both a violation of a right, and also a condition that is conductive to other violations of international legal norms (namely human rights), depending on the context. As it has been established, harm gives rise to an obligation to redress. The question of who is liable to redress this harm depends on the context in which the harm was done, and also depends on which mechanisms stateless individuals are able to access in order to seek redress. The nature of the redress they obtain also depends on the mechanisms they access, as well as on the nature of the violations they experienced and who caused said harm. Another important element to consider in establishing what kind of redress they may obtain is the nature of the mechanism, as there is a difference between judicial or non-judicial mechanisms. The decision by the Court on whether a wrongdoing took place or not (merits) will also be a determinant, in situations where the mechanism accessed is judicial in nature. The specific reparatory measures significantly depend on the context, and each mechanism has its own ways to determine which measures are suitable. The three mechanisms explored in section 4 showed the different forms of redress that can be attained by statelessness individuals. The UNCC, a non-judicial mechanism, for instance granted only compensation, while the IACtHR, a judicial mechanism, granted stateless individuals both monetary compensation and non-monetary forms of reparation. Several conclusions can be drawn from this study regarding the challenges and opportunities faced by stateless persons in seeking redress for harm they experienced. The first is that for claims based on protection thought diplomatic channels, nationality will continue to be an important element in the case of internationally wrongful acts for as long as states continue to be the main actors.225 The “traditional approach” of diplomatic protection will likely continue to be a challenge for stateless individuals regarding the vindication of their rights under international law.226 However, as this study has shown, the rise of other international mechanisms capable of providing victims of internationally wrongful acts with redress almost completely counter this challenge. That is not to say that these mechanisms are free of challenges regarding access to redress. However, it can be concluded that they present a strong framework for ensuring all victims of internationally wrongful acts—particularly highly vulnerable groups like the stateless—can access redress. This is especially true, as this article has shown, because these mechanisms have ways to address the specific challenges that statelessness has posed or can potentially pose for future attempts by stateless persons to seek redress. 222 223 224 225 226 Ibid, at 4; ‘Reparations and the Trust Fund for Victims’ in K. Booth & J Sulzer, Victims’ Rights Before the International Criminal Court: A Guide for Victims, their Legal Representatives and NGOs (International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Paris 2007), at 10. In order to apply for participation in the proceedings, there is a form for victims to fill in and an application process; for requesting reparations, there is another form. ‘‘Reparations and the Trust Fund for Victims’ in K. Booth & J Sulzer, Victims’ Rights Before the International Criminal Court: A Guide for Victims, their Legal Representatives and NGOs (International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Paris 2007), at 11; ‘Reparations and the Trust Fund for Victims’ in K. Booth & J Sulzer, Victims’ Rights Before the International Criminal Court: A Guide for Victims, their Legal Representatives and NGOs (International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Paris 2007), at 4. In Lubanga, it was established that the appropriate modalities of reparation are restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, as well as others with a symbolic, transformative and preventative value. Furthermore, it was established that if an individual is denied individual reparations, he/she can still benefit from collective reparations. See Situation in the DRC in the case of The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo [2015] ICC Appeals Chamber ‘Judgment on the appeals against the “Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations” of 7 August 2012’, ICC-01/04-01/06-3129, para 202; Situation in the DRC in the case of The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo [2015] ICC Appeals Chamber ‘Judgment on the appeals against the “Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations” of 7 August 2012’, ICC-01/04-01/06-3129, para 155. K Hailbronner, ‘Nationality in Public International Law and European Law’ in R Bauböck (eds), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality: Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries (1st, AUP, 2006). EC Gillard, ‘Reparation for violations of International Humanitarian Law’ (2003) 85(851) International Review of the Red Cross 529.