The two- years-long armed conflict in northern Ethiopia was characterized by gross violations that could spark the issue of victims’ reparations based on international law. This research thus aims to assess the adequacy of domestic law, institutions, and practical enforcement with respect to reparations for victims including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, criminal accountability, truth, memorialization, apology, and reform. In pursuit of this aim, the research adopts both doctrinal and non-doctrinal qualitative research approaches. Documents of all types at any level were examined and key informants such as officials and experts as well as victims and victims’ families were interviewed. This research finds out that both the Ethiopian legal and institutional frameworks as well as the practice are insufficient. The law fails to comprehensively recognize all forms of reparations including symbolic, collective, and preventive by nature as well as restitution in its fullest senses. The existing procedural rules fail to fit for the special conditions on the ground so lagging to provide lenient procedural and evidentiary requirements and state liability to reparation. The law also fails to felicitously criminalize crime against humanity, ethnic cleansing as well as enforced disappearance. Regarding institutions, the existing judiciary suffers from a shortage of impartiality, independence, capacity, and victims’ trust and confidence. It also inherently lacks the ability to render symbolic and preventive reparations. The same works for the Inter-Ministerial Task Force (IMTF), which additionally has no institutional security. The newly established National Dialogue Commission (ENDC) could help facilitate dialogue on agendas including reparations and transitional justice had it been inclusive and mandated so. Practically, almost all forms of reparations are not yet provided for victims. A few scattered reparations initiatives are seriously flawed from their very inceptions such as one-sidedness, lack of consultations, and victim centeredness. This research thus argues for the implementation of comprehensive transitional justice mechanisms including the creation of a special judicial structure, a separate truth and reconciliation commission, and an administrative reparation (proper) program. There is also a need for proper criminalization of gross violations including international crimes and recognition of all forms of reparations in the domestic legal system