This chapter explores the ECCC’s adjudicative practices regarding reparations. Distinct features of the ECCC are that its judges are based in the country where the crimes occurred and that they appear both as lawmakers, at least in relation to their procedural rules, and adjudicators of these laws. This chapter examines the ECCC’s adjudicative practices in Cases 001 and 002, the latter being tried in two separate sub-trials (Cases 002/01 and 002/02). After observing that their original framework did not deliver tangible reparations to civil parties in Case 001, judges amended the Internal Rules. My examination of the experience in Case 002 provides an account of how this experiment worked out in practice. ECCC judges were ultimately more socially responsive in their decision-making on reparations than their colleagues at the ICC. Yet, the practices they adopted eventually put into question the remedial nature of the reparations awards.