II. >> C onceptualizing Indicators for Human Rights >> The conceptual framework Structural indicators have to focus first and foremost on the nature of domestic law in relation to a specific right—i.e., whether it incorporates the required international standards—and the institutional mechanisms that promote and protect those standards. Structural indicators also need to look at the State’s policy framework and strategies as applicable to that right. These are particularly important for furthering the implementation of human rights. A national policy statement on a subject is expected to outline the Government’s objectives, policy framework, strategy and/or concrete plan of action to address issues under that subject. While providing an indication of the commitment of the Government to addressing the subject, it could also provide relevant benchmarks for holding the Government accountable for its acts of commission or omission concerning that subject. Moreover, a policy statement is a means of translating the human rights obligations of a State party into an implementable programme of action that helps in the realization of human rights. It is therefore important that, in identifying structural indicators for different rights, an attempt is made to highlight the need to have specific policy statements on issues of direct relevance to the implementation of those human rights. Some structural indicators may be common to most human rights while others are relevant to specific human rights or only to a particular attribute of a human right. Thus, structural indicators like “the proportion of international human rights instruments ratified by the State (from a list of selected human rights treaties, protocols, conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO), etc.)”, “existence of a domestic bill of rights in the constitution or other forms of superior law”, “type of accreditation of national human rights institution (NHRI) according to the rules of procedure of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions”,5 and “number of non-governmental organizations and personnel (employees and volunteers) formally involved in the protection of human rights at domestic level” are relevant for monitoring the implementation of all human rights and, hence, could be reflected in the tables of illustrative indicators for those rights or in the preamble to those tables. On the other hand, indicators like “time frame and coverage of national policy for persons with disabilities” or “date of entry into force of code of conduct for law enforcement officials, including rules of conduct for the interrogation of arrested, detained and imprisoned persons” are specific to a particular human right or to some attributes of a right (see chap. IV, tables 1 to 14). Several structural indicators are explicitly reflected in the treaty provisions, as they clearly spell out the normative commitment. This is true, for instance, of the indicator “time frame and coverage of the plan of action adopted by the State party to implement the principle of compulsory primary education free of charge for all” (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 14) or the various structural indicators relating to norms on access to due process of law. The recommendations adopted by human rights mechanisms, including the treaty bodies, special procedures mandate holders and in the context of the universal periodic review, also contain explicit references to structural indicators (e.g., the adoption of specific laws, provisions or programmes and the establishment of national institutions and mechanisms), as well as to outcome and process indicators. 5. The accreditation procedure is more specifically conducted by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (see also indicator 5 and its metadata in annex I). Human Rights Indicators 35