Ghetnet Metiku Woldegiorgis E-mail: gmgiorgis@gmail.com Page 1

Conceptual and Methodological Framework for Human Rights Monitoring

Human rights monitoring by CSOs/NGOs has been an issue of contention with governments,

including in Ethiopia. In my humble opinion, the underlying cause is traceable to the nature of

human rights obligations per se. Since it is the State that signs international human rights

agreements, it is considered the legal duty bearer for the realization of human rights principles

and standards. As such, human rights monitoring is tantamount to monitoring the performance of

the State in keeping its promises and commitments. However, this is only part of the story. The

other, often more important, factor relates to the conception of human rights monitoring itself

by the individuals and institutions who take it upon themselves to do the monitoring.

Oftentimes, the „monitoring‟ is done in such a way that it amounts to blame assignment and its

results are used as inputs for „shaming‟ the State for its perceived or actual failures. As the

OHCHR handbook on human rights monitoring so helpfully puts it, the ultimate purpose of

monitoring is to improve the human rights situation in a country. Obviously, this cannot be done

by upsetting the legal duty bearer and most capable human rights actor, i.e. the State.

This article is intended to serve as an input for individuals, groups and institutions interested in

engaging in human rights monitoring or preparing a human rights monitoring report as well as

informing discussion on the assessment of existing or future human rights monitoring reports.

While the Ethiopian charities and societies registered to work on human rights are the primary

targets, others including institutions of the State may also find it useful.

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; 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 Meaning and Purposes of Monitoring

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. The following elements constitute monitoring: 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; 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.

Ghetnet Metiku Woldegiorgis E-mail: gmgiorgis@gmail.com Page 2

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: to ensure

compliance with international and domestic human rights law by government authorities and

citizens; to provide remedies for the victims of human rights violations and address impunity for

human rights abuses by collecting evidentiary material for court cases; 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 situations 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. 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 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 Organizations (IGOs)

Treaty monitoring bodies;

UN Human Rights Council

Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups,

Specialized agencies (e.g. ILO, WHO, UNDP, …),

Regional IGOs

Set standards

Monitor compliance of governments with

their treaty obligations

Monitor certain situations involving

violations

Governmental Organizations (GOs)

Agencies/ministries responsible for treaty reports,

National human rights institutions,

Policy monitoring executive bodies,

Specialized commissions/agencies (e.g. anti-

corruption commissions)

Encourage own governments to adopt

international standards

Monitor compliance of own governments

with treaty obligations

Monitor violations

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

International advocacy groups and organizations,

National human rights NGOs

Lobby with IGOs toward setting standards

Lobby with governments toward adopting

international standards

Monitor compliance of governments with

their treaty obligations

Monitor violations

Ghetnet Metiku Woldegiorgis E-mail: gmgiorgis@gmail.com Page 3

4 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 2 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) mechanism 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 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.

5 Human Rights Monitoring Methodologies

Two dominant methodologies in monitoring human rights situations are the "events" (or acts-

based) methodology and the indicators-based methodology. The “events methodology” for

Ghetnet Metiku Woldegiorgis E-mail: gmgiorgis@gmail.com Page 4

monitoring involves identifying the various acts of commission and omission that constitute or

lead to human rights violations. 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.

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. 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.

Sources

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Hans-Otto Sano & Lone Lindholt, Human Rights Indicators: Country Data and

Methodology, Danish Center for Human Rights, 2000

6. Manuel Guzman and Bert Verstappen, Human Rights Monitoring and Documentation

Series, Volume 1: WHAT IS MONITORING, HURIDOCS, 2003

7. 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

8. Mona Nicoara, Human Rights Observation and Monitoring, Independent Consultant,

Columbia University, Monday, June 28, 2004

9. 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

Ghetnet Metiku Woldegiorgis E-mail: gmgiorgis@gmail.com Page 5

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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%20UNDA

F.pdf)

14. 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)

15. 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

16. United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution Building, Human Rights Council

resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007