Moreover, many problems arise out of differences between the immediate ­interests of complainants and the well-being of society at large. If a bribe had to be paid to a police officer in order to have a family member released from custody, the complainant may be satisfied with the return of the bribe and the release of the relative. Yet the broader social interest lies in the officer ­being ­removed from duty and prosecuted – a process that may delay speedy ­resolution of the complaint. Thus, when they look at the rate of ‘resolved cases’, NHRIs must assess whether their recommendations – such as reprimand, dismissal or criminal prosecution of the person(s) found to be responsible of the violation – have been properly followed-up, and whether the victims’ right to reparation has been fulfilled, by the relevant public authorities. Second, an effective national institution should always attempt to tackle human rights issues in a systemic manner. If, for example, it receives many complaints about a similar form of discrimination, it may launch an inquiry to determine the extent of the problem and make recommendations to the government. In such cases, resolving cases individually (even if the complainants are satisfied) may represent a failure of the NHRI policy. Failure to tackle issues systemically may generate more victims – and eventually more “satisfactorily” resolved individual complaints. Statistics (based on quantitative data) will not tell the whole story. Media coverage as an indicator of public outreach A large number of press releases recorded in an annual report says nothing more than that the press office had a busy year. More useful would be statistics on the number of times the NHRI was mentioned in the media. Better still would be indicators of the nature of the coverage of human rights issues that were a priority for the institution. The latter might help to measure the effectiveness of the institution’s public outreach work. Counting one’s output can be done in a matter of minutes, while extensive media monitoring to measure impact is time-consuming and costly. Quantitative indicators should not be chosen simply because they are easily measurable. Cost, time and energy should always be a consideration in devising useful indicators. Quantitative indicators offer useful ways to measure organisational output but provide a poor and sometimes misleading guide when it comes to evaluating the impact of output. 5. Indicators of performance and impact Indicators may be used by NHRIs to assess or measure: ▪ The human rights situation. ▪ Their own performance. ▪ Their impact on human rights. 30 Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions