1. Conceptual and Methodological Framework for Human Rights Monitoring
1 Introduction
The conceptual and methodological approach to human rights monitoring should be informed by:
– best experience among international, regional and national human rights organizations with
particular attention to treaty monitoring bodies, and National Human Rights Institutions;
– the international and regional human rights normative framework;
– the national human rights framework (i.e., the FDRE Constitution, the UDHR, and other
international human rights instruments duly ratified by Ethiopia); and,
– the mandates of the body seeking to undertake the monitoring initiative (as defined under
its establishment proclamation if it is a public body or its organizational objectives if it be a
non-state actor) as interpreted by its high level management.
Accordingly, the author has conducted a review of relevant literature, legislation and practice on the
basis, nature, structure and scope of monitoring by a range of actors, and human rights monitoring
approaches applied by international, regional and national human rights institutions.
2 Conception of Monitoring
2.1 Meaning and Purposes
Monitoring means the close observation of a situation or individual case over a long period of time,
with reference to accepted norms, with the purpose of providing an assessment as basis for further
action.1 The following elements constitute monitoring:2
It is carried out over an extended period of time.
It involves collecting or receiving a large quantity of data.
Close observation of the situation is done through constant or periodic examination or
investigation and documentation of developments.
Standards or norms are used as reference in objectively assessing the situation or case in
question, especially in determining what is wrong with it.
1
United Nations Development Programme, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to
Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, Bureau for Development Policy Democratic
Governance Group, March 2006
2
Manuel Guzman and Bert Verstappen, Human Rights Monitoring and Documentation Series, Volume 1:
WHAT IS MONITORING, HURIDOCS, 2003

2. Tools or instruments are used in identifying how the situation compares with established
standards or norms.
The product of monitoring is usually a report about the situation.
The report embodies an assessment of the situation which provides a basis for further
action.
The most common general purpose of monitoring is to be able to pinpoint what is wrong with a
situation or a case and to indicate what steps can be taken to remedy it. Monitoring is also
undertaken to see whether steps that have been taken to improve a situation are working. Human
rights monitoring has the following particular purposes, among others:3
– To ensure compliance with international and domestic human rights law by government
authorities and citizens;4
– To provide remedies for the victims of human rights violations and address impunity for
human rights abuses by collecting evidentiary material for court cases, investigations by
national human rights institutions, etc …
– To identify patterns of human rights abuses and violations in terms of the types, frequency,
and causes of human rights violation with a view to systemic solutions for addressing them;
– To inform and educate the public about human rights situations5 and ensure transparency for
government and individual actions by establishing the human rights situation in a particular
context thorough documentation; and,
– To offer validation to victims of human rights violations by amplifying the voices of victims
and providing opportunities for those voices to be heard.
While sharing similar purposes, monitoring is distinct from investigation and documentation of
human rights abuses. Monitoring involves the repeated collection of information often involving
investigating and documenting a large or representative number of human rights events.
Investigation, on the other hand, refers to the process of fact finding focused on an event which
carries or is suspected to carry one or more human rights violations. The final stage in human rights
investigations is documentation or the systematic recording of the results of the investigation as a
basis for advocacy or comparison.6 Data documented over a period of time and covering a large
number of specific cases can be analyzed so as to get a fuller picture of the human rights situation in
the context of a monitoring process.
3
Mona Nicoara, Human Rights Observation and Monitoring, Independent Consultant, Columbia
University, Monday, June 28, 2004
4
This is often referred to as the preventive aspect of human rights monitoring since the aim is to ensure
that human rights safeguards are implemented.
5
This is the public education aspect of human rights monitoring
6
United Nations Development Programme, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to
Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, Bureau for Development Policy Democratic
Governance Group, March 2006

3. 2.2 Human Rights Monitoring Bodies
Monitoring may be conducted by a wide profile of human rights actors among which three actors,
namely inter-governmental bodies, NGOs and government organizations – especially national human
rights institutions, take important roles.
Intergovernmental Treaty monitoring bodies; Set standards
Organizations (IGOs) The Commission on Human Rights Monitor compliance of
Special Rapporteurs and Working governments with their treaty
Groups, obligations
Specialized agencies (e.g. ILO, WHO, Monitor certain situations
UNDP, …), involving violations
Regional IGOs, and
The Sub-Commission on the
Protection and Promotion of Human
Rights7
Governmental Government agencies or sector Encourage own governments to
Organizations (GOs) ministries responsible for treaty-based adopt international standards
reports, Monitor compliance of own
National human rights institutions, governments with treaty
Policy monitoring executive bodies, obligations
Specialized commissions/ agencies Monitor violations
(e.g. anti-corruption commissions)
Non-Governmental International advocacy groups and Lobby with IGOs toward setting
Organizations (NGOs) organizations, standards
National human rights NGOs Lobby with governments
toward adopting international
standards
Monitor compliance of
governments with their treaty
obligations
Monitor violations
A national human rights institution is usually any of the following:
Human rights commission – a body composed of several members usually from diverse
backgrounds which discharge various functions (usually different from one commission to
another) that range from human rights education to investigation of complaints.
Ombudsman – an individual or group of persons generally appointed to protect the rights of
individuals who believe themselves to be the victim of unjust acts on the part of the
government
Specialized commission – a body composed of several members which function to protect
the rights of a particular vulnerable group such as ethnic and linguistic minorities, indigenous
populations, children, refugees or women.
National human rights commissions are generally mandated to study international standards,
encourage their governments to adopt these, and call the attention of their governments if the
7
previously known as the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

4. adopted standards are not met. One way through which they monitor the compliance of their
governments with obligations is by making contributions to the required periodic reports.
Another common duty of national human rights commissions as well as specialized commissions is to
call the attention of the government to areas of violations and instances of discrimination in the
country. Many human rights commissions, either national or specialized, and certainly the national
ombudsmen, are mandated to monitor violations, especially if a complaints procedure is in place.
2.3 Approaches to Human Rights Monitoring
The approaches adopted by various actors in monitoring human rights may differ as a factor of what
is monitored, thematic scope or focus, and the intended purposes.
Situation vs. Performance of Duties: The perspective adopted by a monitoring initiative may fall into
one of three general categories: a situation monitoring; or a duty-bearer analysis. A situation report
seeks to monitor progress in the realization of human rights, i.e., whether and the extent to which
the rights are enjoyed by the rights-holders. As such, the focus is on the status of human rights and
the situation of vulnerable groups. While such reports abound at the national level, the reports
prepared under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism8 within the framework of the UN
Human Rights Council are also a good example. On the other hand, a duty-bearer analysis report,
such as most of the treaty-based reports, monitors the fulfillment of obligations to realize human
rights. Such a process thus focuses on mapping human rights actors, and examining actions taken by
the State and other legal and moral duty-bearers to realize human rights. In some cases, these two
perspectives may come together in a multi-perspective monitoring report dealing with the status of
rights, situation of vulnerable groups and fulfillment of legal/moral duties by the duty-bearers.
Comprehensive vs. Specialized: Human rights monitoring processes and reports are also different in
terms of the range of issues/rights to be covered. Some reports comprehensively cover the whole
range of rights while others opt for a more in-depth coverage of selected thematic issues/rights.
Most national human rights reports, however, have an overview section dealing with the whole
range of rights/issues as well as specific sections for more in-depth discussion of selected
issues/rights.
Situation vs. Case Monitoring: Human rights monitoring can be of two general kinds, depending on
their focus: situation monitoring and case monitoring. Under each kind, there can be various forms,
as summarized below:
Situation monitoring monitoring human rights violations
monitoring the drafting and passing of legislation
monitoring the implementation of laws and policies
monitoring the establishment and progress of human rights institutions
Case monitoring monitoring the legal process undergone by a case
monitoring relief and rehabilitation services provided to a client
monitoring other forms of intervention in a case
Situation monitoring focuses on a situation in general in terms of the recurrence of violations,
progress in relevant human rights legislation and the performance of human rights institutions. This
8
United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution Building, Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18
June 2007

5. form of monitoring is useful for the purpose of monitoring government compliance with treaty
obligations as well as for domestic monitoring. Case monitoring, on the other hand, is very focused
and victim-oriented and involves work for or on behalf of an individual victim or a group of victims.
Follow up and documentation of developments in the case is an essential and integral part of case
monitoring.
3 Human Rights Monitoring Methodologies
Two dominant methodologies in monitoring human rights situations are the "events" (or acts-based)
methodology and the indicators-based methodology.9
The “events methodology” for monitoring involves identifying the various acts of commission and
omission that constitute or lead to human rights violations. In other words, it is a concrete form by
which the “violations” approach takes shape. This methodology involves investigating and
documenting an event that is suspected of or confirmed to be consisting of one or more acts
considered as violations.
A limitation of the “events” methodology is that it usually does not aim, or often fails, to arrive at a
complete picture by giving the total number of violations, much less the proportion of actual victims
to the whole population. There are two problem areas identified in this regard:
– The monitoring body does not hear of all events involving the violations covered by its
mandate; and,
– Even if the monitoring body learns of events that are likely to contain violations, it is unable
to investigate and document these for reasons such as ongoing military actions, hesitation of
witnesses to come forward, and lack of resources.
Indicator based human rights monitoring, on the other hand, involves the use of performance
standards for the core components of specific rights in the form of indicators and benchmarks to
determine patterns and trends. The advantages of this methodological approach have been noted in
terms of enabling the identification of problems and potential major violations, expressing the
magnitude of the problems, comparisons over space, determination of the status of groups within a
country, and facilitating the evaluation of trends over time.10 However, indicators and benchmarks
may not be appropriate in addressing grave violations since they tend to aggregate the situation of
individuals. Indicators-based methodology is especially weak in situations were victims require direct
and individualized assistance.
In short, the combination of the “events” methodology and the indicators-based methodology
should result in a comprehensive and detailed picture of a situation.
3.1 Identifying, Selecting and Benchmarking Indicators
An indicator is a tool that shows where something is, what direction it is leading to, and how far it is
from that objective. It serves as a sign or symptom that tells what is wrong in a situation and helps in
9
Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and Methodology, Danish
Center for Human Rights, 2000, p. 57
10
Audrey R. Chapman, Indicators and Standards for Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Science and Human Rights Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000, p. 1

6. pointing out what needs to be done to fix the problem. A human rights indicator may be defined as
“a piece of information used in measuring the extent to which a legal right is being fulfilled or enjoyed in
a given situation.”11 Indicators may be based on quantitative or qualitative information and may
assess inputs or outputs. Quantitative indicators measure change through numerical or statistical
facts of physical outputs. A more accurate description would thus identify indicators as “quantitative
or qualitative statements that can be used to describe situations that exist and to measure changes
or trends over a period of time”.12 In this definition, indicators are seen as both qualitative and
quantitative descriptions of situations and as elements that are employed to define a particular
process.
International, regional, and national human rights institutions have developed widely accepted
indicators for a range of rights. At the international level, UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNESCO, and
WHO, Special Rapporteurs such as Paul Hunt on the Right to Health, and inter-agency working
groups have developed rights-based measurement systems in their respective spheres of expertise.
Most notable among these are the detailed CESCR Guidelines,13 the draft harmonized reporting
guidelines, the human development indicators and indices of UNDP, the national context-specific
benchmarks under the Common Country Assessment (CCA) framework of UNDAF, 14 and indicators
developed for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).15 Generally, three kinds of rights-based
indicators have been identified for human rights monitoring.16 These are: structural, process and
result indicators measuring commitment, efforts and results, respectively.17
Structural indicators measure whether or not appropriate legal, regulatory and institutional
structures considered necessary or useful for the realization of a human right18 are in place as an
indicator of the extent to which human rights are guaranteed through ratification and adoption of
legal instruments and existence of basic institutional mechanisms deemed necessary for facilitating
realization of human rights (such as court systems, human rights commissions and ombudsmen, and
11
Maria Green, When We Talk about Indicators: Current Approaches to Human Rights Measurement,
report written for the Human Development Report Office, United Nations Development Programme,
July 1999
12
Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and Methodology, Danish
Center for Human Rights, 2000, p. 55
13
UN, “Revised general guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports to be submitted by states
parties under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,”
E/C.12/1991/1, 17 June 1991
14
UN, Common Country Assessment and United Nations Development Framework: Guidelines for UN
Country Teams (Geneva: July 2004) 6
(http://www.undp.or.id/mdg/documents/Guidance%20for%20CCA%20and%20UNDAF.pdf)
15
United Nations Development Group, Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals:
Definitions, Rationale, Concepts, and Sources (New York: United Nations, 2003).
(http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mispa/Metadatajn30.pdf)
16
Paul Hunt, Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right
of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, United Nations
General Assembly, Fifty-eighth session, Agenda item 117 (c), 10 October 2003
17
Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Report on Indicators for Promoting and
Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights, HRI/MC/2008/3, Twentieth meeting of chairpersons
of the human rights treaty bodies, Geneva, 26-27 June 2008
18
This refers to national law, constitutions, regulations and legal, policy frameworks and institutional
organization and mandates.

7. formal complaint mechanisms).19 They capture commitments or the intent of the State in
undertaking measures for the realization of the concerned human right to monitor the state
obligations of conduct, i.e. the effort the government has put forth towards the realization of a
human right. Structural indicators have to focus foremost on the nature of domestic law as relevant
to the concerned right, i.e. whether it incorporates the international standards, and the institutional
mechanisms that promote and protect the standards. Structural indicators also need to look at policy
framework and indicated strategies of the State as relevant to the right. Most structural indicators
are qualitative in nature, and a number of structural indicators may be evaluated by a simple “yes“ or
“no“ answer, e.g. if a particular law or policy is in place or not. However, sometimes these yes/no
answers need follow-up questions and additional clarification, to capture qualitative dimensions of
the law or policy.
A process indicator on the other hand measures the degree to which the state is complying with its
obligations as well as the effectiveness of the structural realities, the laws and institutions that exist.
In most cases, process indicators relate State policy instruments20 with benchmarks that cumulate
into outcome indicators, which in turn can be more directly related to the realization of human
rights. Process indicators capture:
– quality of a process in terms of its adherence to the key human rights principles (is the
process non-discriminatory, accountable, participatory and empowering, and can duty
bearers be held accountable?), and
– type of policy instruments, and public resource allocations and expenditures invested to
further the progressive realization of a specific right.
Examples of process indicators include the amount of government spending on female primary
education, and the degree of independence of the judicial system.
A result indicator measures the outcome of efforts, or the lack of them, to meet a particular
obligation and success in bringing about greater equity and wellbeing.21 It is therefore an indication
of the current status of the enjoyment of a certain right and a more direct measure of the realization
of rights. Outcome indicators capture attainments that reflect the status of realization of human
rights in a given context. For instance, a result indicator may relate to whether and to what extent
individuals and groups enjoy freedom of religion and free speech, or an increase in government
spending on female primary education actually yield improvements in the literacy rates of girls
relative to boys.
Salient features of the OHCHR indicators framework
19
The existence of institutions of civil society, including the independent media, universities, and human
rights organizations is also considered a structural indicator.
20
State policy instruments refers to all such measures including public programmes and specific
interventions that a State is willing to take in order to give effect to its intent/commitments to attain
outcomes identified with the realization of a given human right.
21
A human rights inquiry is ultimately interested in the way people actually experience their rights, so it
is important for us to measure outcomes

8. – A common approach to identifying indicators for monitoring civil and political rights, and
economic, social and cultural rights, thereby strengthening the notion of the indivisibility and
interdependence of human rights;
– The framework translates the narrative on the normative content of human rights (starting with
the related provisions of international human rights instruments and general comments by treaty
bodies) into a few characteristic attributes and a configuration of structural, process and outcome
indicators.
– The identified indicators bring to the fore an assessment of steps taken by the State party in
addressing its obligations – from acceptance of international human rights standards (structural
indicators) to efforts being undertaken by the primary duty-bearer, the State, to meet the
obligations that flow from the standards (process indicators) and on to the outcomes of those
efforts from the perspective of rights-holders (outcome indicators);
– The framework makes it is easier to identify contextually meaningful indicators for universally
accepted human rights standards. It seeks neither to prepare a common list of indicators to be
applied across all countries irrespective of their social, political and economic development, nor to
make a case for building a global measure for cross-country comparisons of the realization of
human rights;
– The framework focuses on two categories of indicators and data-generating mechanisms: (a)
indicators that are or can be compiled by official statistical systems using statistical surveys and
administrative records; and (b) indicators or standardized information more generally compiled by
non-governmental sources and human rights organizations focusing on alleged violations
reported by victims, witnesses or NGOs; and
– The framework also focuses on quantitative as well as qualitative indicators to assess the
implementation of human rights effectively. Efforts have been made to keep the identified
indicators simple, based on objective and transparent methodology and, to the extent feasible,
there is an emphasis on the disaggregation of identified indicators by type of prohibited
discrimination (e.g. sex, ethnicity, disability, etc) and by vulnerable or marginalized population
groups.
UN- OHCHR’s work on indicators for human rights assessments,
Status Note August, 2007
Most existing frameworks, such as treaty body guidelines,22 focus on structural and process-level
indicators rather than outcomes due to ease of measurement, and emphasis on government
obligations. One visible exception is the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
whose Guidelines require states to provide specific outcome level statistics disaggregated by social
group, sex, geographical location and other criteria, and supplemented with information about the
rates of change over the past five and ten years.23 However, the principle of interdependence among
the whole spectrum of human rights requires that a system of rights-based measurement
incorporate indicators for both enforceability (structure and process) and actual rates of enjoyment
(outcome). As Craig Mokhiber of OHCHR has noted,24
22
See for instance: General Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Periodic Reports to be
Submitted by States Parties under Article 19, Paragraph 1, of the Convention , United Nations
Committee Against Torture, revised 1998, Document C/14/Rev.1.
23
UN, “Revised general guidelines regarding t he form and contents of reports to be submitted by states
parties under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,”
E/C.12/1991/1, 17 June 1991
24
Craig G. Mokhiber, “Toward a Measure of Dignity: Indicators for Rights-Based Development,” The
Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 18 (2001) 159

9. “… simply measuring status, or degree of realization, is not sufficient. There is a need to ensure
the existence of an express right, and to monitor and measure effectiveness of institutions and
mechanisms of redress and enforcement as well”.
Moreover, the use of structural, process, and outcome level information gives us a more
comprehensive picture of the human rights situation as well as a clearer indication of accountability.
These would in turn lay the basis for more relevant recommendations to realize human rights.
The various frameworks developed through the above indicated efforts provide us with a choice of
indicators. Yet, there are a few more challenges that have to be addressed to ensure the contextual
relevance and effectiveness in addressing the objective(s) for which the indicators are to be used. A
major general concern in this respect is the fact that almost all available attempts were principally
geared towards treaty-based reporting by States; a point that may give us pause in applying the
same indicators for a report developed by an independent national human rights institution.
Moreover, concerns relating to validity, reliability and transparency in terms of triangulation/cross-
confirmation among data sources, capturing the essential aspects of the normative framework, and
appropriate methodology have to be addressed.25 More specifically, the selection of human rights
indicators is also necessitated by the following methodological considerations:
Simplicity, timeliness and number of indicators: Indicators that are too complex, take too
much time to measure or are too numerous would be useless in practice in light of inherent
limitations of expertise, time and other resources; after all, indicators are expected to
indicate;
Objectivity: indicators should be directly observable and independently verifiable based on
objective information and data-generating mechanisms following relevant international
statistical standards, rather than perceptions, opinions, assessments or judgments made by
experts/individuals
Comparability: monitoring indicators should be suitable for temporal and spatial comparison
since we are interested in measuring changes and differences; and
Disaggregation: monitoring indicators should be amenable to disaggregation in terms of sex,
age, and other vulnerable or marginalized population segments.26
In general, indicators should be produced and disseminated in an independent, impartial and
transparent manner and based on sound methodology, procedures and expertise.
Finally, the indicators we have selected have to be benchmarked to make them open to regular
monitoring of progress over successive time spans that takes into account the current situation. A
benchmark is the level that is aimed to be met when using a certain indicator. An example of a
benchmark, when using adult literacy rate as an indicator, is 75% literacy among adults nation-wide.
25
Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Workshop on Measurement and Human Rights, Program in
Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, July 6-8,
2006
26
General Comment No. 19 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sets out an
exhaustive listing of grounds for non-discrimination, which may require disaggregation of data, if
feasible.

10. Unlike human rights indicators which measure human rights observation or enjoyment in absolute
terms, benchmarks generally refer to targets established by particular governments in relation to
specific rights. The primary use of benchmarks is to offer a tool to assess the performance of states
in reaching the goals they have set for a particular interval of time as part of the process of fulfilling
their obligations.
3.2 Identification and Selection of Sources of Information
Human rights monitoring reports generally focus on two complementary sources of quantitative
data: socio-economic and other administrative statistics; and, events-based data on human rights
violations.
Socio-economic statistics refers to quantitative information compiled and disseminated by the State,
through its administrative records and statistical surveys, usually in collaboration with national
statistical agencies and under the guidance of international and specialized organizations. The use of
a standardized methodology in the collection of information, whether it is through census
operations, household surveys or through civil registration systems, and usually with high level of
reliability and validity, makes indicators based on such a methodology vital for the efforts to bring
about greater transparency, credibility and accountability in human rights monitoring.
Events-based data, on the other hand, is information relating to alleged or reported cases of human
rights violations, identified victims and perpetrators. The most important sources are cases
entertained by national human rights institutions and UN special procedures both of which normally
process allegations in a standardized manner. While such data does not provide comprehensive
information on violations and precludes comparison over time or across regions, such indicative data
has significant potential in terms of elaboration. Other sources of qualitative information used in
human rights reports include household perception and opinion surveys and data based on expert
judgments.27
One should however be cautious and selective in the use of available secondary sources be aware of
the possible limitations. At the outset, comprehensive information consistently covering all
categories and dimensions of human rights is not available due to reasons attributable to limited
objectives, scope and coverage. Moreover, the data sources often manifest problems relating to
source biases, validity, reliability, transparency, variance truncation, and aggregation.28
Information source bias relates to the availability of information and the possible biases stemming
from the type of organizations that produce the information. Most available reports by human rights
organizations, having access only to those violations that are reported, are based on reported cases
of violation rather than a comprehensive database. Moreover, the very nature of the organizations
may entail inherent bias in the way information is collected, compiled, analyzed and reported. For
instance, foreign government reports such as those produced by the US State Department and the
UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office will necessarily have certain biases and differ from
27
Rajeev Malhotra and Nicholas Fasel, “Quantitative Human Rights Indicators: A Survey of Major
Initiatives,” draft for discussion at Turku, 3 March 2005.
(http://www.abo.fi/instut/imr/indicators/Background.doc)
28
United Nations Development Programme, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to
Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, Bureau for Development Policy Democratic
Governance Group, March 2006

11. information provided by international governmental and non-governmental organizations. There are
also differences in reporting and interpretation among different human rights NGOs, such as
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House as well as between government
agencies and CSOs. In relation to narrative and qualitative reports, there will be varying degrees of
bias and uncertainty associated with differences in source material, ideological influences, and the
fact that there are many incentives not to report human practices and problems accurately or at all.29
Validity concerns the degree to which an indicator actually measures what it purports to measure.
There may be some ‘distance’ between the category and/or dimension of a particular human right
and the indicator that is being used to measure it. Certainly the use of proxy measures runs up
against this problem.
Reliability concerns the degree to which the indicator can be produced consistently across different
contexts by different groups at different times. Can the indicator be produced by different people
using the same coding rules and source material?
Transparency concerns the degree to which the coding rules and procedures for producing an
indicator are publicly available. For example, while some human rights data websites are explicit
about its coding rules and sources for coding its different indicators, other are less transparent about
the sources that are used for each country and how its checklists are used to produce their different
scales.
Variance truncation concerns the degree to which information on human rights at the national level is
forced into limited categories, such as those found in the standardized scales derived from expert
judgments. These standardized scales, which fail to show changes over shorter periods, are only
useful for those countries in which there has been great variation in human rights protection over
time.
Aggregation concerns the ways in which indicators are combined as well as the degree to which they
provide information on different groups of people in a country. For example, the HDI, which employs
different aggregation and weighting rules for the various components, rarely provides information
that helps identify the rights conditions for significant sub-populations within countries.
29
Human Rights Watch, for instance, relies heavily on communication with a network of “local human
rights activists and civil society members” throughout all stages of its research. As such, there is
always a risk that HRW reports channel the institutional and methodological biases inherent in using
secondary sources as the principal basis for monitoring. Moreover, such selective approach is by
definition non-responsive to comparisons across time and space.