I. >> H  uman Rights and Indicators: Rationale and Some Concerns >> Some concerns and misconceptions D. Some concerns and misconceptions 1 Quantification of qualitative information A frequently voiced concern is that it is not feasible to quantify and measure human rights compliance. Moreover, human rights relate to qualitative aspects of life, which may not be amenable to being captured by statistical information. For example, in administering justice, the competence of judges may be more relevant than their number. In addition, it is often said that quantitative human rights data may not exist or may be unreliable. Such a concern may be the result of a misunderstanding of what is sought to be measured. In using indicators for human rights, the primary interest is in measuring a few relevant features that could be related to an improvement in the realization and the enjoyment of human rights, or in assessing the efforts being made by the duty bearer in meeting its human rights obligations. The focus is not on identifying an extensive list of indicators, based on statistical surveys, on all human rights standards or treaty provisions. Indeed, that would be unnecessary. Indicators are tools that add value to assessments with a strong qualitative dimension; they do not replace them. At the same time, by making appropriate use of commonly available statistical information, for example on access to legal aid by different population groups or school enrolment of children from specific social groups, indicators could help to assess some qualitative aspects of human rights enjoyment more objectively and comprehensively. Once this distinction in the use of indicators is clear, it is much easier to identify indicators for human rights assessments.22 2 Data availability and disaggregation The use of indicators as a human rights assessment tool depends critically on the availability of relevant and reliable data. While there will always be some constraints in finding such data, it is the objective of this publication to demonstrate how diverse information, from different types of sources, could be successfully combined to develop indicators for human rights assessments (see chap. III for details). More importantly, in many instances commonly available statistical information and administrative records could be reconfigured into suitable indicators to highlight the human rights aspects of a situation. A related concern is the lack of appropriate statistics at the required level of disaggregation to support analysis of non-discrimination and equality—a principal focus in any human rights assessment. It is, therefore, argued that unless there are adequate data to capture the enjoyment or violation of human rights across context-relevant population groups, it is meaningless to rely on indicators in such assessments. Although the lack of disaggregated statistics is indeed a limiting factor, it does not undermine the potential usefulness of suitable indicators in facilitating objective assessments. At best, it will merely delay their use until the relevant data become available. Moreover, beyond the use of commonly available socioeconomic statistics at a disaggregated level, such as those used in monitoring human development,23 it is equally important to 22. As discussed in section C, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative indicators is not necessarily straightforward. Typical quantitative indicators like the proportion of fully qualified and trained primary schoolteachers, dropout rates or literacy rates are also relevant for assessing the quality of the education system or, in other words, the qualitative aspects of the realization of the right to education. 23. The UNDP Human Development Reports. Available from http://hdr.undp.org. Human Rights Indicators 21