I. >> H  uman Rights and Indicators: Rationale and Some Concerns >> Some concerns and misconceptions may have to be tailored to the contextual needs of a country. In general, both globally applicable as well as context-specific indicators will be useful in human rights assessments so long as they are anchored in the universally applicable human rights standards. As highlighted in chapter V, the development of relevant indicators will also depend on the type of process, in particular participatory processes involving human rights actors, that the country adopts to define, collect and disseminate them. 5 Relevance of indicators for both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights A major concern with the use of indicators for human rights assessments stems from the fact that there is no significant body of work in the literature, or in practice, that uses a consistent and coherent framework to identify and develop those indicators. For historical reasons and, perhaps, for the sake of analytical convenience, two distinct approaches have been used to monitor the realization of civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. This has contributed to an artificial dichotomy that is neither desirable nor tenable in the face of the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. The resulting ambiguity and complexity of the approaches may have contributed to a certain scepticism about the use of quantitative indicators for human rights assessments, perhaps even holding back progress in this area of work. Traditionally, a violation approach has been used for civil and political rights. It is based on the consideration that the normative content of these rights is explicit, the claims and duties are well known, and the rights can be enjoyed as soon as they are guaranteed by the State (see sect. A 2). Thus, any outcome that violates the treaty provisions related to a human right can be used as an indicator to monitor the implementation of that right. For instance, the incidence of disappearance or arbitrary detention can be seen as a lack of enjoyment or, more precisely, a violation of a certain aspect of the right to liberty and security of the person and, therefore, be used to monitor the implementation of that right. The focus is essentially on monitoring the absence of negative outcomes. As a result, such rights are often categorized as “negative” human rights. For economic, social and cultural rights, the general practice has been to monitor outcomes related to the progressive realization of these rights in accordance with article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.25 Such rights are perceived as resource-intensive and therefore difficult to guarantee, particularly in developing countries. Therefore, it is logical to monitor such outcomes that can be related to the progressive realization of these rights over time. Since the relevant outcomes in this case are desirable, positive and require proactive measures by States, these rights have been often associated with “positive” human rights obligations. The use of distinct approaches and corresponding methodologies to monitor the two sets of rights has led to the presentation of human rights as positive or negative rights. However, in practice all human rights have positive and negative obligations and their implementation could be associated with both positive and negative outcomes. For instance, the proportion of specific positions (e.g., seats in parliament or senior official positions) held by women can 25. “Each State Party to the [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.” Human Rights Indicators 23