▪ Handle complaints speedily and effectively Complainants expect national institutions to have authority to deal with bodies against which complaints are made. Procedures should be simple, accessible, affordable and speedy. Securing compliance with the NHRI’s recommendation is also crucial. National institutions should have power to refer their findings to courts of law or specialised tribunals for adjudication when their good offices fail. This list is clearly not exhaustive although it probably covers the most important aspects in most instances. It should also be noted that each element contains several aspects. For example, “public legitimacy” includes formal guarantees of independence, the institution’s status in law, and public reputation. “Adequate budgetary resources” similarly covers both the source and management of funds. Chapter I explores these elements in more detail. Assessing effectiveness – benchmarks and indicators This report suggests ways in which NHRIs can assess and measure their ­effectiveness. To do so, they need to define (a) standards against which they can assess themselves; and (b) specific measures that tell them how effectively they are working. We shall call the first of these benchmarks and the second indicators. Benchmarks are standards that define the minimum attributes of national i­nstitutions with respect to their legal foundation, membership, mandate, ­funding and so on. National institutions should meet such benchmarks because, if welldefined, they will determine whether or not the institution is in a position to achieve its fundamental purpose which is to promote and protect human rights effectively, as well as more specific programme objectives. Indicators, by contrast, are tools that measure NHRIs’ performance, in relation both to their objectives and their benchmarks, but also over time and relative to other matters. It is clearly more complicated to develop useful indicators than to establish benchmarks. This is partly because, whereas benchmarks are normative ­standards, indicators measure dynamic processes. Take, for example, the ­government’s obligation to protect against discrimination on grounds of gender. This is a cross-cutting principle that applies to all rights, and is almost ­invariably a significant focus of the work of national institutions. What measures can NHRIs  The distinction that we make between benchmarks as standards and indicators as ways of measuring performance will be shared by many. However, the two terms are used in different ways and sometimes interchangeably. The literature on this subject is not consistent.  The S.M.A.R.T. approach asserts that objectives for each programme and activity need to be: ▪ Specific – They must be precisely defined rather than vague and general. ▪ Measurable – It must be possible to assess whether they have been achieved. ▪ Achievable – Objectives that can, by their nature, be realised. ▪ Realistic – The institution should be in a practical position to achieve them. ▪ Time-bound – A timetable for achieving objectives ought to be set. Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions