Transitional justice has become the legal and moral grammar for articulating victims’ demands for justice in conflict-affected societies. Yet it is a grammar that deftly places the responsibility for addressing impoverished victims’ main concerns, namely economic and social rights (ESR), in other fields. This is largely possible thanks to the ‘separability thesis’, according to which ESR and reparations are conceptually distinct, and therefore the guarantee of ESR cannot be considered a means of reparation. This thesis, now widely accepted by scholars, UN special procedures, and the Inter-American Human Rights System, places victims in a situation where they can be repaired while remaining poor. This article critically examines the development of this thesis during the encounter with transitional justice in Colombia and clarifies the important role it has played in the remaking of the field and its application in conflict-affected societies. Drawing on the lessons of this conceptual history, the article argues for the development of a framework that articulates victims’ everyday ESR claims in terms of reparation, and explores human rights bodies, traditionally neglected in the transitional justice literature, that are well suited for this purpose. Reconsidering the separability thesis requires rethinking the state–individual relationship, understanding state power not only as a source of mistrust and a target of stigmatization, but also as an active agent in addressing socioeconomic wrongs. With this shift, the article anchors the literature on transformative reparations within the normative framework of the ICESCR, while acknowledging the realpolitik constraints that affect the guarantee of ESR.
