AA
Share
In recent days, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in relation to the 2025 ruling Chavarría Morales et al. v. Nicaragua, set compensation at $530,000 in favor of the victims. This has raised alarm among the political class regarding the day after the fall of the Ortega-Murillo regime and the work related to human rights violations. But why is urgent and prioritized attention to victims’ right to reparations important? How can it be carried out? And how much would it cost?
First, it seems pertinent to point out that the Chavarría Morales et al. v. Nicaragua case cannot serve as a benchmark for calculating compensation, due to the passage of time and, above all, because an international body was used to quantify damages.
Second, the importance of immediately implementing a policy of reparations for victims of serious human rights violations perpetrated by the Ortega-Murillo regime is necessary in order to: turn the page on this dark chapter; enable a genuine process of national reconciliation; focus public debate on building the kind of country that must be constructed; and, finally, to de-victimize the nation, preventing the emergence of populist leaderships grounded in unmet demands for justice.
How should a reparations policy for victims be designed? I believe that Mexico’s legal framework on reparations for human rights violations can be very instructive and transferable to the Nicaraguan reality. Based on this, I can point to four essential conditions. First, it must be established through a law; second, financial resources must be allocated; third, a state institution must be created—or ad hoc powers granted—to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson; and fourth, a special procedure must be created to address these victims.
This process of victim assistance should begin with a registry of victims, followed by the adoption of a resolution establishing a comprehensive reparations plan (preferably issued by an interdisciplinary group), which would even determine the calculation of compensation for the various types of harm suffered. Finally, the process must include compliance with the reparations plan.
Likewise, the work carried out by international bodies documenting the serious human rights violations committed by the Ortega-Murillo regime must be recognized, paving the way for immediate reparative actions. For example, creating programs that could allow for: repatriation of displaced persons with airfare and financial support for resettlement; immediate return of confiscated property; compensation for funeral expenses and repatriation of exiles who died abroad; compensation for individuals subjected to arbitrary imprisonment; replacement of equipment for censored media outlets; legal and material restoration of canceled non-governmental organizations; reinstatement of pensions and payment of pensions that retirees failed to receive; restoration of identity documents, passports, and revoked law licenses; as well as a range of other immediate measures that can be adopted to promptly restore the human rights of thousands of Nicaraguans.
The establishment of reparations programs with immediate actions can increase victims’ satisfaction and contain the demand for reparations before international bodies, which are far more costly. Additionally, it allows for direct implementation of the “Principle of Equity” established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which takes into account the socio-economic context and the State’s ability to pay, without losing sight of the fact that these were widespread human rights violations affecting a large number of people.
How much would it cost to compensate all victims of the serious human rights violations committed by the Ortega-Murillo regime? The most honest answer I can give is that I do not know. As long as the universe of victims is not defined, the violations are not clearly established, and the scope of the reparations policy is not delimited, it is difficult to say. If we consider a universe of 10,000 victims (including both direct victims and indirect victims such as family members), and an average reparation cost of US $15,000 per person (a moderate-to-conservative estimate), we would be talking about a sum close to $150 million.
I admit this is a very abstract estimate and does not take into account countless variables, but it is a figure from which one must begin to think about whether there is a genuine commitment to pursue reparations seriously. My call to the political class is to take this into account—not only as an act of basic justice, but because failure to do so will, in the short term, lead to a new institutional crisis and an exponential increase in claims before international bodies.
Can Nicaragua afford a payment of approximately this amount in the medium term? I do not believe so, although it might be possible if some form of debt were incurred. However, it must be kept in mind that the country’s debt has increased significantly since Daniel Ortega came to power in 2007. Nevertheless, there is another resource that might be used if it is assumed that, morally and politically, compensation for human rights violations constitutes a debt: international reserves.
In 2018, international reserves were approximately $2.25 billion; today they exceed $9 billion. They are projected to grow to a maximum of $10.302 billion by 2028, before experiencing a slight decline by 2030. The IMF’s recommendation to increase reserves is linked to international and domestic factors, some of which could shift favorably for the country if Ortega and Murillo were to leave power—for example, reduced trade barriers, increased investment, and economic growth.
If the increase in reserves has been largely due to sustained growth in remittances—and these, in turn, have grown due to migration (for economic and political reasons)—it seems reasonable to consider them a resource that could be used to address the debt of repairing damages resulting from serious human rights violations committed by the regime. Of course, this must be done without jeopardizing agreements with the IMF and taking into account the assessments of experts in the field.
I have dedicated my professional life to human rights, and the last five years to issues related to reparations. Based on that experience, I can assure you that determining who did what to whom is the easy part of human rights work; but materializing a satisfactory reparations process for victims—taking into account Nicaragua’s socio-economic context—is almost like hoping for a miracle.
