Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up the responses of the state, if any are in fact received, are limited and the SPT is principally reliant on other actors, including the NPM, to provide it with such evidence. An independent and credible NPM can provide a reliable source of information.31 Many NPMs also include in their own recommendations reference to international standards and documents as well as to related recommendations from these and other international bodies, such as the CPT. 2.5 How to measure implementation and compliance In recent years there has been considerable attention paid to how to measure implementation and compliance with human rights norms and standards. Within this there is extensive literature and documents on human rights indicators, which have been used to measure compliance of human rights norms and standards,32 but it is unfortunate that it is seen as complex and technical.33 In addition, Richard Carver notes that ‘in some instances the indicator does not have the valid, proven relationship with the right ostensibly being measured.’34 These factors explain in part why potentially useful tools from the human rights indicators field have not generally been translated over into discussions on measuring compliance with recommendations of institutions like NPMs or other bodies. Various questions are considered by those treaty bodies or other actors who undertake follow-up and measurement of compliance and implementation. These include: what information should be collected to measure compliance and implementation (namely, not only information from the state or the actor expected to comply, but other sources such as Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI), parliamentarians, among others); and what precisely is being measured (particularly when the recommendation made by the relevant body may not itself be sufficiently specific). It requires consideration of a number of variables including: the length of time taken to comply with a recommendation; how many recommendations are made at any one time and whether some need to be prioritised; the complexity of what may be required to comply and implement; and the range of actors that should be involved in doing so. One interesting attempt by an NPM to measure implementation of recommendations can be found outside of the European context. In the Maldives the NPM has developed a ‘Recommendations Monitoring Tool Kit’.35 This comprises three core elements: 1. A recommendations implementation time-line 2. A recommendations monitoring tool; 3. A ‘17 Factor Model’. Within this package of tools the recommendations implementation time-line consists of a list of recommendations in each visit report, which is shared with the relevant authority and forms part of the process of establishing constructive dialogue. The recommendations monitoring tool sets out progress with the implementation of each recommendation based on ‘progress monitoring scale’.36 Lastly, the 17 Factor Model sets out a list of factors identified by the NPM that are applied to each recommendation as an indicator of implementation.37 See Part II, Chapter 2.5 for more information about cooperation with international actors. See UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)’s webpage: <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/ Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx>; and OHCHR, ‘Human Rights Indicators: a Guide to Measurement and Implementation’ (2012) UN Doc HR/PUB/12/5; see also RL Barsh, ‘Measuring Human Rights: Problems of Methodology and Purpose’ (1993) 15 (1) Human Rights Quarterly 87; M. Green, ‘What we talk about when we talk about indicators: Current approaches to human rights measurement’ (2001) 23 Human Rights Quarterly, 1062. 33 G. de Beco, ‘Human Rights indicators: from theoretical debate to practical application’ (2013) 6 Journal of Human Rights Practice 159. 34 Comments provided by Richard Carver during the peer review of this Study. 35 For more information on this toolkit see J Mahmood, ‘Getting Recommendations implemented’ in APT Global Forum on the OPCAT February 2012 <http://www.apt.ch/content/files/opcat%20forum/Jeehan_Mahmood_Session5.pdf>. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 31 32 - 25 -