Despite the vast literature on the right to health in international human rights law, it is still rare that human rights organisations provide rights-based analyses on health in conflicts in general, and on mental health in particular. In this post, I take the opportunity to critically review two conceptual aspects of a ground-breaking report by Amnesty International. First, harm to mental health should not exclusively be viewed as an impact of the conflict but can itself constitute a violation of the laws of war or of human rights law. Second, it is a welcome development that Amnesty International does not exclusively frame the need to provide for mental health services from the angle of the right to reparations.