II. >> C onceptualizing Indicators for Human Rights >> The conceptual framework comments Nos. 3 (2003) and 4 (2003) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Article 6 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 5 (e) (iv) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, articles 12 and 14 (2) (b) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, articles 28 and 43 (1) (e) of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and article 25 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were also useful in identifying these attributes. The use of such attributes in the identification of indicators demonstrates the mutually supportive role of interpretive practices and the application of indicators. Treaty body practice, and in particular general comments/recommendations, has been instrumental in the selection of attributes. Identifying indicators for each attribute will, then, assist the treaty body in assessing compliance with and further developing the interpretation of the treaty provision. It is sometimes suggested, for instance in the case of most economic, social and cultural rights, that a generic approach should be adopted to the identification of attributes or indicators based on the notions of adequacy, accessibility, availability, adaptability, acceptability and quality that are defined in the general comments adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.3 These are the principles that are expected to guide the duty bearer in facilitating and providing relevant “goods and services” to the rights holders, in the course of meeting its human rights obligations. They do not in themselves replace the relevant treaty provisions. They also have to be interpreted specifically for each human right. For instance, “accessibility” (i.e., physical accessibility, affordability and non-discrimination) will generally be more pertinent than merely the “availability” of goods and services in measuring the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.4 Similarly, the definition of “adequacy” for the right to adequate food or the right to adequate housing has to be based on the respective standards. Just as it is not easy or appropriate to follow this generic approach consistently across economic, social and cultural rights, it is not feasible for the identification of attributes of most civil and political rights either. These principles, however, have a role to play in the selection of the indicators for different attributes of a right (see chap. IV, sect. C). Having identified the attributes, the next step is to have a consistent approach to selecting and developing indicators for the normative standards and the obligations related to those attributes. This step requires considering different types of indicators to help capture the different facets of human rights implementation. 3. See, for instance, its general comments on the rights to food, housing, health and education. 4. It will usually be more important to know if targeted persons or rights holders have effective access to food than if the food is available nationwide. Likewise, knowing the proportion of people who have regular access to a medical doctor will be more relevant than knowing the total number of doctors in a country. Nevertheless, data on indicators reflecting availability are often more easily compiled and may be of critical importance in assessing the realization of certain rights, such as the right to food and in particular issues of national food security and self-sufficiency. 32 Human Rights Indicators