31. It is relevant to consider the shared responsibilities of those involved in an armed conflict with regard to serious crimes. The acknowledgment of responsibility by the most senior leaders can help promote a process of clarifying both the facts and the structures that made such violations possible. Reduction of sentences, alternative punishments, direct reparation from the perpetrator to the victim, and public acknowledgment of responsibility are other ways that can be considered. 32. Full reparation is the third essential element of transitional justice in such a context. It aims to restore relationships of trust within society and seeks to lay the foundations for processes that prevent the repetition of the tragedy that violated this trust, because of the non-international armed conflict. Evidently, this is based on the principle that all violations of international law entail an obligation that they must be repaired and, in this respect, the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has made a significant contribution.20 Regarding reparations, there is an extensive array of options that range from pecuniary compensation to measures of rehabilitation and satisfaction, among others. 33. As has been noted in some studies, the component of reparation has its own difficulties – and even impossibilities – in the case of massive and widespread violations of the human rights.21 In these situations, it would seem that the objectives of these massive programs of reparations is not so much to reinstate the victims to the status quo ante, but rather to provide clear signals that the rights and dignity of people will be fully respected.22 In any case, the legitimacy and effectiveness of reparation programs in these circumstances requires, as an essential ingredient, the design and implementation of effective mechanisms for the participation of those people at whom the programs are directed.23 34. Finally, an essential ingredient of reparation, not only for the victims but also for society as a whole, consists in the apologies and accounts of the perpetrators and the acknowledgments of responsibility. The full confession of the facts for which they may have been responsible is an inevitable ingredient - but not the only one - for reparation. It is also a message to society in order to close the door on violence as a way to deal with political or social differences. These “didactic monuments,”24 as they are an account of atrocities, remind society about what can happen when an armed conflict breaks out and reinforce the capabilities of society in the face of future threats that something like that could happen again. 35. The acknowledgment of responsibility by senior State officials has been introduced consistently in the case law of the Inter-American Court. This is an essential ingredient of transitional justice that seeks to reconstruct the conditions for democratic institutional viability in a society. Although there are many precedents for this kind of act, they multiplied in certain parts of the world at the end of the Cold War.25 Tony Blair in Great 20 International law has established this principle explicitly, not only in Articles 10, 63 and 68 of the American Convention, but in many other international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 8), the European Convention on Human Rights (art. 50), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 9), and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (art. 14). 21 De Greiff, Pablo. Repairing the Past: Confronting the Legacies of Slavery, Genocide, & Caste. Yale University, Connecticut. October, 2005. Page 8. 22 Ibid. Page. 10. 23 Ibid. Pages 10-11. 24 Osiel, Mark. Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory and the Law. Transaction Publishers, New Brnswick, 1999. Page. 4. 25 Hazan, Pierre. Measuring the impact of punishment and forgiveness: a Framework for evaluating transitional justice. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 88, Number 861. March 2006. Page 24. 7