Introduction In 2000, the International Council published Performance & Legitimacy: ­National human rights institutions. National institutions had multiplied during the 1990s and the report looked at what made them effective and successful. Five years later, despite unfavourable developments in the international ­human rights environment, the growth of national institutions is unchecked. The present report revisits the issue of effectiveness and examines how national ­institutions might improve their performance and impact by using benchmarks and ­indicators to assess their work. The Introduction describes types of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and the report’s methodology. It reviews the standards set for national ­institutions that are codified in the Paris Principles. It also defines what is meant by ­‘benchmarks’ and ‘indicators’. Chapter I draws out the characteristics that make NHRIs effective and ­proposes some benchmarks that they might use to evaluate their compliance with the Paris Principles. Chapter II examines quantitative and qualitative indicators and suggests how national institutions can use them to assess their performance and impact and judge whether they are achieving the benchmarks identified in Chapter I. The final chapter offers some brief observations in conclusion. Methodology Whereas the International Council’s 2000 report was based upon extensive field research, this is a desk study. Its principal sources have been interviews and discussions with members of NHRIs, and a questionnaire distributed to ­national institutions with the assistance of the Office of the United Nations High ­Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The questionnaire gathered ­information about how NHRIs currently evaluate and plan their work. Types of national human rights institutions National human rights institutions take many forms. Attempts, such as this, to develop common standards for measuring their work need to take account of these differences. National institutions can be categorised in terms of their mandate, their organisational composition, or the political and legal traditions within which they operate. Thus we can distinguish single- from multi-member institutions; those whose primary orientation is to advise governments on matters of human rights policy  International Council on Human Rights Policy, Performance & Legitimacy: National human rights institutions, Geneva: ICHRP, 2000. (Second edition, with a new postscript, 2004.) Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions