Abstract
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) has succeeded in asserting its capacity to afford reparation in spite of the silence of the norms regulating its activity. The HRC has correctly interpreted the right to an effective remedy as enabling it to provide redress. Moreover, it has developed significant practice in reparations, which has gradually evolved. The HRC's remedies have grown in variety and definition, as well as in the coverage of victims. Notwithstanding that, this article argues that this evolving process encompasses some problematic aspects in need of rectification. This research discusses the ambiguity in the formulation of certain reparations, their inconsistency and insufficiency to repair discrimination, as well as the under-utilisation of guarantees of non-repetition and some satisfaction measures. Moreover, the article addresses some of the difficulties in defining the beneficiaries of reparations, and seeks to elucidate what has been achieved, which challenges are faced and how the HCR's reparations should develop.