C. Using indicators to measure impact Though somewhat artificial, it is vital to distinguish between the ­performance of an institution and its impact. There is clearly some overlap between an ­institution’s efficiency and its impact. However, performance indicators ­measure whether the institution has actually achieved what it set out to do; impact ­ indicators ­assess whether those activities effectively changed the human rights situation. An NHRI is only one influence – and usually a relatively minor one – on the human rights environment. The institution’s impact must therefore be evaluated against what is feasible. NHRIs usually have little control over their legal powers or the extent of their material and human resources. They are rarely in a position to influence large trends in society. This is not to minimise their importance, but merely to be realistic about what NHRIs can be expected to achieve. Very often, the conclusion might be that an NHRI has performed reasonably well but had little positive effect on the overall human rights situation. That ­conclusion itself needs to be analysed. Did it choose the wrong priorities ­although its activities were well executed? Were the activities it performed not relevant in the end to the issue they were expected to address? Was the NHRI simply not powerful enough? Or were other factors responsible? Legal advice to government The activity – NHRIs are usually mandated to review proposed legislation as a matter of course and audit existing laws to see how well they conform to the country’s international human rights obligations. When proposed or existing laws conflict with human rights standards – or can be improved in other ways – the NHRI so advises the executive and Parliament accordingly. Indicators of output – The institution will need to determine that it has analysed and commented on relevant laws. If reviewing existing laws, it will need to create a timetable and measure whether it is reaching targets in relation to it. Indicators of performance – Using performance indicators, the NHRI will then, among other things, assess whether it met these targets on time. In addition, it might introduce more qualitative tests. Was the legal review carried out thoroughly? Were all important human rights issues identified and commented upon? Members of the executive and Parliament might also be asked whether the NHRI’s comments were understandable and relevant, in substance and format. Indicators of impact – An immediate measure of impact will be whether government or legislators followed the advice given. How often was advice adopted, ignored or rejected? Again, however, some additional qualitative tests might be required. Did the government take the national institution’s advice on small points, while pressing ahead with a proposal that seriously breached human rights commitments? Did the implementation of the advice given by the NHRI result in a positive change in the enjoyment of human rights on the ground? 34 Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions