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 1

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; Set standards
UN Human Rights Council Monitor compliance of governments with
Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups, their treaty obligations
Specialized agencies (e.g. ILO, WHO, UNDP, …), Monitor certain situations involving
Regional IGOs violations
Governmental Organizations (GOs)
Agencies/ministries responsible for treaty reports, Encourage own governments to adopt
National human rights institutions, international standards
Policy monitoring executive bodies, Monitor compliance of own governments
Specialized commissions/agencies (e.g. anti- with treaty obligations
corruption commissions) Monitor violations
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
International advocacy groups and organizations, Lobby with IGOs toward setting standards
National human rights NGOs 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 2

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 3

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 4

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