I. >> H  uman Rights and Indicators: Rationale and Some Concerns >> Some concerns and misconceptions identify and develop specific human rights indicators, both qualitative and quantitative, that reflect the unique aspects of human rights standards and cross-cutting norms.24 That process also contributes to clarifying the content of the right and making it more concrete. While disaggregated data are essential for addressing human rights concerns, it may not be practical or feasible always to disaggregate data at the desired level. Disaggregation by sex, age, region or administrative unit, for example, may be easier than by ethnicity, as identifying ethnic groups often involves objective (e.g., language) and subjective criteria (e.g., self-identification) that may evolve over time. Although many population groups call for more visibility (for themselves) in statistics to inform on prevalent discrimination or disparities and to support targeted policy measures, being identified as a distinct group may be a politically sensitive issue, which may discourage disaggregation of data (chap. III, box 9). The production of any statistical data also has implications for the right to privacy, data protection and confidentiality, and may, therefore, require consideration of appropriate legal and institutional standards (see chap. III for further details). 3 Statistical averages vis-à-vis information on individual cases The use of statistical averages in human rights assessments or data relating to the enjoyment of human rights by specific population groups, such as the most vulnerable or marginalized groups in a society, may seem paradoxical. Moving from national averages towards data that capture the enjoyment of rights by every single individual would appear more in line with a human rights approach. It would enable an assessment of the extent of discrimination and inequality in the enjoyment of human rights for every individual in a society. Besides the fact that this is not generally feasible, focusing on a subset of the population by using averages is not in conflict with the notion of universality and inalienability of human rights. Indeed, both kinds of data may be useful in undertaking human rights assessments. For example, data reflecting the efforts made by a State to provide legal aid or public health and sanitation free of charge to people could easily and meaningfully be captured at an aggregate level of a community or an administrative unit of a province. While data on torture would have to be primarily captured through information on individual cases, statistical surveys representative of the affected populations (e.g., prison population) can be a complementary source of information to measure the incidence of torture and other ill-treatment in the country. 4 Universal vis-à-vis contextually relevant indicators Indicators can be more meaningful and are more likely to be used when they are contextually relevant. It may not be crucial to collect information on mortality rates for malaria in a Scandinavian country, where malaria is rare. However, in South Asia or parts of Africa, the incidence of malaria may be a good indicator for assessing the State’s public health efforts in addressing critical right-tohealth concerns. At the same time, a case of torture or forced eviction or information on the homeless is likely to be relevant in most parts of the world. While human rights are universal and every individual, regardless of location, has the right to enjoy them equally, there will be instances where indicators 24. In its general comment No. 3 (1990), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognized that “in many instances legislation is highly desirable and in some cases may even be indispensable. For example, it may be difficult to combat discrimination effectively in the absence of a sound legislative foundation for the necessary measures”. 22 Human Rights Indicators