A/HRC/60/77 33. Academic Coordinator and Researcher at the Afro-Latin American Research Institute of Harvard University, Carolina Silva-Portero, explained that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights offered valuable guidance on a comprehensive, human rights-based approach to reparatory justice that extended beyond financial compensation to restore dignity and foster reconciliation. She stressed the importance of symbolic reparations and guarantees of non-repetition, such as public apologies and institutional reforms. She emphasized that reparations for Afrodescendent communities should be collective and tailored to the unique harm that they had endured. 34. Professor at the University of Kinshasa and Coordinator of the African Union Reference Group on Transitional Justice in Africa, Luc Mubiala Mutoy, discussed various avenues for addressing historical injustices and stressed that diplomatic relations and symbolic reparations could not replace legal reparations owed to Africans and people of African descent. He argued that international law principles for gross violations of human rights were applicable to enslavement and colonialism and that reparations should be based on transitional justice principles. He proposed the adoption of a “transtemporal principle” to address the continuous, transgenerational nature of the harms suffered by people of African descent. 35. Visiting Fellow at Kellogg College, University of Oxford, Patricia Sellers Viseur, analysed enslavement and the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans through the lens of international criminal law to inform reparations demands. She recalled that enslavement and the trade in enslaved persons had been prohibited under the Slavery Convention and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. She argued that victims of enslavement crimes had a right to reparations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. She presented five constitutive elements of reparations for contemporary forms of enslavement, namely conviction, personal liability, types and modalities of reparations, harm and victim, suggesting that they could inform the discussions on historical crimes. 36. Secretary-General of the Africa Judges and Jurists Forum, Martin Okumu-Masiga, in an online presentation, asserted that international law, through its recognition of enslavement as a crime against humanity and a jus cogens norm, provided a robust foundation for reparatory justice. He acknowledged legal controversies regarding the possibility of delivering reparatory justice, such as the intertemporal principle. He argued that meaningful reparatory justice must include historical accountability, address structural inequalities and involve people of African descent. 37. During the ensuing discussion, Ms. Reynolds, noting the distinctions between recognition, acknowledgement and apology and the need for them to be genuine, pointed out that it would be useful to have an objective standard of proof for genuineness. Ms. Ekiudoko observed that international law, shaped by colonialism, had established a jurisprudence of injustice, and called for a reconfiguration of the international system away from Western hegemony. Ms. Mamadou stated that the main impediment to reparations was a lack of political will, rather than legal barriers, and recommended an emphasis on moral obligation. 38. Civil society representatives advocated domestic reparations, the recognition of members of the African diaspora as citizens of Africa with a right of return to the continent, and the distinctiveness of people of African descent as a group. They also highlighted that reparations should involve all offending parties, including religious institutions and corporations, and called for United Nations support to prevent environmental injustices. 39. In response, Ms. Belle Antoine stressed the need for strong advocacy and solidarity to decolonize and rebuild the international system. Mr. Mubiala Mutoy emphasized the need to address the transgenerational impacts of enslavement and colonialism. Ms. Silva-Portero explained that the approach of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights provided a framework for national courts to define reparations on the basis of comprehensive principles and mutual agreement. 40. The third panel, on the theme “Political dimensions and implications of reparatory justice”, was chaired by Ms. Reynolds. 7