This is largely analytical and involves relatively little data-gathering or data analysis. Results data will be used to reveal the extent to which process indicators are working. Result indicators may be used to: ■■ Delineate the types of data that are needed; ■■ Form a baseline against which subsequent progress will be measured; ■■ Track progress; ■■ Support subsequent analysis. Once the indicators are set and the data are collected, NHRIs publicize the results of the research and analysis to bring pressure to bear on the authorities to make improvements when this is necessary: ■■ The monitoring programme will result in a public report such as an annual report or special report; ■■ The report will, if possible, identify problems and make recommendations for action; and ■■ The institution will make appropriate efforts to encourage the adoption of those recommendations. If the institution’s annual report is the primary vehicle for presenting monitoring results, the process of data-gathering should be ongoing. Waiting until it is time to draft an annual report to start to collect and analyse data will result in either delays in the report or substandard analysis. An institution may also decide to produce separate special reports on the human rights situation. National human rights institutions should in all cases take great care in presenting data from secondary sources. Sources should be attributed, both for reasons of research integrity and generally accepted citation practices, but also to make it clear that the institution is citing the material, not vouching for its accuracy. The data should not be presented in conclusive terms unless they have been researched and verified preferably with reference to other credible sources and authorities. Data that show poor performance by the Government or other organization should be cross-checked against the data of the institution being criticized, and particular care should be taken in presenting data that contradict other published data. It is important to consider the data source; some organizations may exaggerate results or have a particular agenda to advance. This affects the credibility of their data. When data from Government sources contradict other sources, it is necessary to reflect on which to use. Official Government data are on the public record and can be used by officials to contradict or discredit the institution’s own data, so care should be taken. To show balance, it may be prudent to give both sets of data, unless there are compelling reasons for believing that one set is more reliable than the other, such as a third set of data or the report of an independent expert. Some explanation of why one set of data is more authoritative is better than ignoring one set over another. An institution can increase the likelihood of positive change if it can also set out recommendations that are both practical and feasible. A few key recommendations are generally preferable to lengthy and detailed recommendations that are, or appear to be, unrealistic or overly ambitious. Issuing data and reports is only one step. An institution should consider how best to present its findings by using the media, for example, and by encouraging and coordinating public advocacy by other social forces. Of the utmost importance is encouraging public understanding of the monitoring results and of their importance for the enjoyment of human rights. 119