A/HRC/18/45 16. Mr. Beckles also referred to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban in 2001. In this regard, he highlighted the refusal of Western countries to address the issue of reparations. 17. The keynote speaker pointed out that the denial of historic truth was unacceptable and that many families of victims of the slave trade, in different countries, continued to face the consequences of this crime. The reason why Haiti continued to be one of the poorest countries in the world was mainly due to the fact that it was forced to pay reparations to France following its independence. 18. The speaker noted that slavery and the slave trade had a dreadful impact on national health care, education and infrastructure, and that they led to massive illiteracy and poverty. Nowadays, the same countries that suffered from slavery were very often defined as “failed States” and considered a threat to democracy and security as a lack of rule of law and democracy provided a fertile ground for terrorism. 19. In response to the keynote address, a representative of civil society suggested that the Human Rights Council should recognize, in a resolution, the importance of the Haitian, French and American revolutions as contributions to the development of human rights. These events could also be acknowledged in the context of the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. 20. A delegate emphasized that remedies were linked to the acknowledgment of responsibilities and that issuing statements of regret for the past by some States did not necessarily mean an apology and an acknowledgment of their responsibilities. 21. Mr. Sicilianos pointed out that reparations had to be in a credible form. It was difficult to calculate such human suffering in financial terms. He noted that historical monuments were important forms of reparations, because they demonstrated that States accepted responsibility for their acts of the past, which in general terms improved dialogue among States. Symbolic acts and the adoption of measures guaranteeing non-repetition of such tragedies were also essential. 22. In response, Mr. Beckles noted that the concept of aid empowered the giver, whose act was triggered by sympathy. He emphasized that the nature of reparations is completely different as it is an act of justice, returning what was taken from the countries and the victims. Reparations were not about confrontation. It is a healing process and a step towards the future. 23. Mr. Beckles pointed out that special measures should not be confused with reparations. He noted that, while special measures were implemented at the national level by a Government towards its own population, reparations addressed international responsibilities and were made at the international level. 24. The keynote speaker emphasized that reparations should be in the form of financial redress. Legal practitioners already addressed issues and practices relating to reparations for victims of the Holocaust; this could be a good starting point for transferring knowledge and applying it to the victims of slavery and the slave trade. He suggested that an international, intergovernmental reparation agency be established so that individual countries did not have to bear individually the financial burden. Another possibility was to create reparation agencies or committees at the regional level, for example one in the Caribbean, one in Africa one, and so on, which could negotiate on behalf of their respective communities. He also suggested establishing a reparation fund at the international level, which would finance specific projects addressing the consequences of slavery and the slave trade, such as research on health and assistance for health care and education. 25. The speaker also highlighted the existence of academic racism, which led to the perpetuation of racist philosophies. He pointed out that it was important to reflect historical 5