Reflections on using indicators and measuring impact in human rights

Juan Carlos Martnez and Juan Salgado Fundar, Centro de Anlisis e Investigacin

Cross-cutting issues
What do we have to measure? Policies

International human rights law provides a compelling normative framework for the formulation of national and international policies.

Cross-cutting issues
What do we have to measure?

2. Human rights violations (patterns)

Rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. However, measurement regarding their progress continues to be divided in civil and political (more qualitative) vs. economic, social and cultural (more quantitative).

Cross-cutting issues
Developing indicators for different sorts of rights 1. Civil and political rights Freedoms (of expression, assembly). Political rights (access to information).

2. Economic, social and cultural rights Progressive realisation: non-discrimination and equality; maximum available resources, minimum core content; non-regresiveness.

Cross-cutting issues
Human rights obligations for all states: Duty to respect. Duty to protect.

Duty to fulfil.

Cross-cutting issues
Challenges for human rights fact-finding and data analysis Sensitive training for data collection. Zero tolerance on discretionality: those compiling and systematising primary data must follow the same categories for given human rights violations. Mutually exclusive reporting and filing.

Exhaustive classification of data.

Cross-cutting issues
1. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT ASSESSMENT Systematic process to ensure the integration of human rights aspects in decision-making throughout the policy formulation, implementation, checking and adapting process. It includes a continuous system of monitoring and evaluation of the results of policy measures in terms of human rights observance. (HOM-Netherlands)

Cross-cutting issues 2. INDICATORS The aggregated and combined summaries of facts (or figures) that may be used as signposts on what human rights violations are happening and to identify patterns on their development.

3. BENCHMARKS Targets set in a particular program or project. E.g. Millennium Development Goals or National Strategies. 4. CRITERIA Translation of targets (objectives) into accountable and assessable minimum norms.

Cross-cutting issues 5. ACCOUNTABILITY NGOs are caught between the notions of public and corporate accountability. Public accountability: legitimacy of actions vis vis certain constituency. Corporate accountability: more quantitative, related to cost/effectiveness. HR NGO accountability: responsiveness to victims of HR violations.

FUNDAR
From budget analysis to applied research on human rights. Since 2002, Fundar has been involved in the development of operational guidelines to use budget analysis as a tool for assessing human rights policies and, more recently, human rights violations.

FUNDAR
Measurement of civil and political rights METAGORA Survey 2004-2006 in Mexico City and 2007-2008 in Quertaro (civil rights). Latin American Index on Budget Transparency 2003-2005-2007 (right to access information). State-level Index on Budget Transparency for Mexico, 1st edition 2007 (right to access information).

FUNDAR
Measurement of economic and social rights Studies on the right to health (since 2000, ongoing). Analysis of federal budgetary allocations for education and basic infrastructure. Revenue Watch project. Analysis of the use and allocation of oil revenue funds in Mexico.

Fundar develops four projects in the thematic area of human rights and governance: 1. 2. 3. Monitoring of the ombudsman system in Mexico. (Funded by the MacArthur Foundation). Monitoring the accountability of the Mexico City Police Department. (Funded by the Open Society Institute). Pilot project to monitor policies related to the right to health in Mexico and Central America. (Funded by the Ford Foundation). METAGORA Pilot survey on ill-treatment by lawenforcement officials in Mexico City (Funded by the European Commission and the OECD).

4.

Identifying common impact elements in both projects:

Monitor and analyse the consistency, coherence and effectiveness of particular public policies with human rights principles. Prioritise areas of concern and critical issues, and combine methodological tools. Generate accountability frameworks.

Monitoring the ombudsman system in Mexico

FIRST PHASE (2002-2005) Objectives (benchmarks) To promote accountability and transparency in the performance of public human rights institutions in Mexico. To promote civil society involvement in different operative fields of public human rights institutions. Activities (impact) Critical analysis of normative frameworks. Evaluation of accountability procedures. Study on relations ombudsman-civil society.

Monitoring the ombudsman system in Mexico Evaluation in 2004-2005 Impact on stakeholders: legislators, civil society organisations, staff of human rights commissions. Development of capacities in the staff of Fundar: litigation, training, Added value: focus on autonomy of ombudsmen offices. Shortcomings and blurred opportunities: identify areas of inefficiency and lack of skills. Planning and SWOT: reflection on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

Monitoring the ombudsman system in Mexico SECOND PHASE (2005-2008)

remains

Objectives (benchmarks) To promote accountability and transparency in the performance of public human rights institutions in dismissed Mexico. To promote civil society involvement in different operative fields of public human rights institutions. To enhance the capacities of staffs at local new ombudsmen.

Monitoring the ombudsman system in Mexico SECOND PHASE (2005-2008) Activities (impact) Train staffs of human rights commissions in conflict resolution skills, rights-based restoration and use of international HR standards. Evaluate the accountability procedures of the federal ombudsman, with relevant references to state ombudsmen. Strategic litigation, particularly addressed to issues related to the lack of autonomy in ombudsmen offices.