CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Assessing the effectiveness of NHRIs is complex. National institutions ­intervene in a variety of ways, from auditing laws and training public officials, to ­educating the public, monitoring the human rights situation and sometimes handling ­complaints. Each of these activities requires specific evaluation methods. NHRIs also cover a great number of issues, from employment rights to torture, from discrimination to environmental protection. More important still, they are just one of many actors that influence the human rights environment. The benchmarks outlined in Chapter I are for use by all NHRIs (allowing for differences in organisation and mandate). Nevertheless, benchmarks need to be interpreted, taking account of national context and available resources. It would be foolish to insist that national institutions should issue parallel ­reports to treaty-bodies or attend annual UN human rights meetings, if to do so would ­paralyse other important activities. The indicators discussed in Chapter II should be tailored even more carefully to local circumstances. The test of effectiveness for national institutions is not how far they make uninterrupted progress towards a society in which all human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. Many NHRIs operate in an environment in which human rights are not an official priority or, worse, are under attack. They have limited powers. Their first responsibility may be to hold the line by continuously monitoring government behaviour and keeping awareness of human rights alive in society. For these reasons, indicators should always be developed, understood and ­interpreted with judgement, taking account of the political and economic ­context. No single set of indicators will provide information that is relevant and useful to every case. NHRIs should mine this report for tips about how they might construct reliable and valid indicators for themselves. Often national institutions are most effective when they work in conjunction with other organisations, perhaps as a catalyst. This role cannot easily be ­measured quantitatively. Participatory indicators become particularly important in this context. Finally, it is important to underline that benchmarks and indicators are not ­objectives in themselves. They are useful tools if they help NHRIs to become more effective at promoting and protecting human rights. They generate ­performance targets and information on impact. They should help NHRIs to ­understand what forms of organisation and what activities will best advance their overall objectives. Indicators can be valuable, but if the search for them becomes too complex, time-consuming and expensive, other means are ­usually available. Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions 39