II. >> C onceptualizing Indicators for Human Rights >> Some considerations in conceptualizing the indicators C. Some considerations in conceptualizing the indicators 1 Strengthening the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights By emphasizing the need to measure commitmentsefforts-results and the use of uniform categories of indicator clusters for both sets of human rights, civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, the adopted framework bridges the artificial divide between them and reinforces the importance of their interdependence and indivisibility (see chap. I, sect. D 5). 2 Measuring obligations to respect, protect and fulfil By using the configuration of structural-processoutcome indicators in undertaking human rights assessments, the framework supports the selection and development of indicators that reflect the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil. While there is no automatic correspondence between the three obligations and the structural, process and outcome indicators, the different kinds of obligations can be covered by the three categories of indicators. It has been suggested that instead of identifying and developing structural-process-outcome indicators for each human rights attribute, it may be desirable to identify indicators under the three State obligations to respect, protect and fulfil for each human rights attribute. There are at least two reasons for choosing the former in the framework. First, this categorization builds on tools and classifications that are already widely used in the development policy context and are likely to be more familiar to policymakers and implementers, human rights and development practitioners, who are part of the target audiences for this work. In fact, the use of structural, process and outcome indicators in promoting and monitoring the implementation of human rights helps in operationalizing, and perhaps also demystifying, the notion of human rights among those who are not familiar with the human rights discourse but are expected to mainstream rights in their work. The proposed configuration helps in extending the reach of the human rights discourse beyond the confines of legal and justice sector discussions. Second, it may not always be possible to identify an indicator that reflects uniquely one of the three types of obligations. Often, an indicator based on the commonly available administrative and statistical data may end up reflecting more than one kind of obligation, which may not be very desirable if the intention is to build a structured, common and consistent approach to developing indicators across all human rights.14 Having said this, in the selection of indicators for a human right, an attempt should be made to include structural, process and outcome indicators, particularly process indicators, that make it easier to assess the implementation of the said obligations. In certain instances, it is possible that certain attributes of a right are mostly related to one or the other type of obligation. For instance, the attributes “use of force by law enforcement officials outside detention”, “conditions of detention”, and “community and domestic violence” for the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are respectively linked mainly to the obligations to respect, fulfil and protect. 14. Without further investigations, it will be difficult to assign a high mortality rate or a lack of access to effective remedies to a single obligation to respect, protect or fulfil rights. 42 Human Rights Indicators