Recalde-Vela 197 the violations’.171 According to the IACtHR, ‘the purpose of reparations is to eliminate the effects of the violations that have been committed’.172 This purpose is also known as restitution in integrum.173 They should not make the victim richer or poorer;174 they should restore the individual to the situation he/she enjoyed before the violation, repair the consequences of the violation and indemnify the victim for damages, including non-quantifiable harm such as emotional harm.175 In Expelled Persons, the IACtHR considered that it was necessary to ‘award different reparatory measures to ensure the violated rights and to redress the harm integrally’.176 In both of the cases concerning stateless persons, the primary reparatory measure ordered was restitution of the right to nationality of the victims.177 Furthermore, compensation was issued for pecuniary damage, which refers to any form of damage that can be quantified, such as loss of income, in both cases paid to the victims and in Yean and Bosico, to the parents of the children.178 Payments to the victims were made directly to them,179 but it is not specified whether they faced any challenges in relation to obtaining the payments. The reason why this is of concern is that stateless persons often face issues in opening bank accounts.180 Regarding non-pecuniary damage, in Yean and Bosico the IActHR considered that the judgment—together with the various measures of satisfaction and the guarantees of non-repetition—constituted an adequate form of reparation. In the same decision, as part of ‘other forms of reparation’, the IACtHR ordered the state to publicly acknowledge its international responsibility for the violations through a public apology181 and make the relevant sections of the judgment public. Furthermore, the state was ordered to amend its laws and adopt measures that can permit acquisition of nationality through late declaration of birth,182 a provision that if implemented would have ended the issue of statelessness in the country. A program to provide human rights training to state officials was also ordered by the IACtHR.183 These actions would also serve as guarantees of non-repetition.184 It has been shown how one of the main challenges faced by stateless persons in accessing redress at the IACtHR has been proof of identity, through identification documents proving who they claim to be. The reason why this could pose a challenge is that being identified as victims of the alleged human rights violations is a requirement for access to redress in the form of reparatory measures. As mentioned previously, challenges regarding proof of identity almost disqualified some of the victims from being able to access redress, regarding the acknowledgement the state’s responsibility for violating their rights and, consequently, to access reparations for said violations. The IACtHR turned this challenge into an opportunity, by taking into account the special situation of stateless persons and showing leniency regarding identification documents. Regarding reparatory measures, the IACtHR in both cases focused on restitution as the primary measure: it ordered the Dominican state to restore the stateless victims with their Dominican nationality. This measure sought to redress the violation of article 20 ACHR, the right to nationality, they suffered which caused 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v Chile, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 413. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2005), para 211. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v Honduras, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 1989), para 26. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2005), para 211. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v Honduras, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 1989), para 26. Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 444; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v Chile, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 414; Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v Honduras, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 1989), para 25; see also Case of Neira-Alegría et al. v Peru, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 1996), para 56. Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), Para 456. See Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 477; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2005), para 229. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2005), para 252. While this may sound simplistic, stateless persons often struggle with opening bank accounts, since frequently they lack any form of documentation, which is frequently required to open a bank account. See for instance <http://www.institutesi.org/world/ impact.php> accessed 16th March 2019. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2005), para 235. ibid, para 239. ibid, para 242. ibid, para 235.