use to determine whether government departments are doing all they should to implement this right? Clearly certain steps must be taken: non-­discrimination laws must be enacted. However, these are more often benchmarks rather than indicators. How is one to say whether the law is working or not? Does measuring the rise or fall in employment of women illuminate discrimination adequately? Are rates of pay a better test? Is it vital to report on the sorts of jobs that women are employed to do? Would an increase in complaints of gender discrimination indicate that discrimination was on the increase, or that women were being empowered by the law to assert their rights? Measuring the impact of NHRIs is even more difficult. To do this, it will be i­mportant to reach firm conclusions not only about the general state of human rights, but about the effect of the NHRI’s actions. If gender discrimination has declined, how far was this the result of the institution’s work and how far were separate factors responsible? Moreover, NHRIs may have a positive impact, though overall respect for human rights may decline; or they may have no ­positive impact though the overall situation may improve. In summary, benchmarks have a normative content; they identify minimum standards that should be achieved. Indicators, by contrast, are precisely what the word implies: they signal changes in direction or illuminate trends. It follows that indicators can be used to help national human rights institutions judge whether their objectives and benchmarks are being achieved. Benchmarks set out minimum conditions that need to be in place if a national institution is to achieve its objectives. Indicators provide information about progress, i.e., whether a national institution is making ground towards its objectives or continues to respect its benchmarks. 10 Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions