{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027250206440957887, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.808988764044944, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Indivisibility of Rights: Truth Commissions, Reparations, and the Right to Development

While academics debate the ranking of rights, information from the field demonstrates their indivisibility. This Article explores how truth commissions provide rich documentation of the interrelation between violations of Civil and Political Rights (CPR) and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR), using Peru's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as an example. The TRC's findings show how social and economic inequalities contributed to the eruption of political violence, which further exacerbated these conditions. This revelation challenged the TRC to develop a reparation plan that adequately responded to the needs of victim-survivors, while maintaining a causal link with damage caused by the conflict. Ultimately, the TRC focused narrowly on repariing damage caused by CPR violations. Yet now, almost four years later, the government confuses development with traditional reparation measures, generating criticism. The author proposes that Peru's post-conflict recovery may need to accept the overlap between reparations and development to improve the "well being" of its intended beneficiaries.