III. >> M  ethodological Approaches to Human Rights Indicators >> Sources and data-generating mechanisms Box 13 Recording complaints and assessing human rights It is difficult, though not impossible, to infer the extent of human rights violations in a country using only statistics on complaints processed by national or international human rights monitoring mechanisms. Indeed, an increase in reporting of complaints does not necessarily imply an increase in violations and abuse. Awareness campaigns, improved access to and filing of complaints with alternative redress mechanisms, improvement in the credibility of institutions handling complaints and the possibility of obtaining compensation for the victims, all influence the reporting of human rights violations. Information on the functioning of complaint mechanisms is particularly important for monitoring the implementation of the right to an effective remedy (Universal Declaration, art. 8) at the national level. Nevertheless, complaint statistics have to be interpreted cautiously and information collected pooled with other statistical analyses that draw on multiple data sources (e.g., victimization surveys, media reports and administrative information) to get a fuller sense of the state of human rights. At the same time, improvements in the recording and interpretation of complaint statistics could make them more meaningful for human rights assessments. Thus, in considering an act violating the human rights of an individual or a group, it is important to identify, through appropriate indicators, the main rights violated, the relevant characteristics of the victims (e.g., sex, ethnicity, disabilities) and perpetrators (e.g., State agents, private companies or individuals), place and time of violations, and outcome of the redress process (e.g., conviction, sentence, compensation). Analyses of such information and reports on similar past events may enable the monitoring body to obtain insights into the possible incidence of such acts in a region. It is also essential to classify complaints and reported cases of alleged violations systematically to support follow-up and allow for cross-sectional comparisons or comparisons over time of associated acts, when required. For instance, a useful categorization of communications on complaints was developed by Philip Alston as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. He classified replies received from States to his communications following complaints into five categories: (a) Largely satisfactory response: a reply that is responsive to the allegations and that substantially clarifies the facts. It does not, however, imply that the action taken necessarily complies with international human rights law; (b) Cooperative but incomplete response: a reply that provides some clarification of the allegations but that contains limited factual substantiation or that fails to address some issues; (c) A  llegations rejected but without adequate substantiation: a reply denying the allegations but which is not supported by documentation or analysis that can be considered satisfactory under the circumstances; (d) Receipt acknowledged: a reply acknowledging that the communication was received but without providing any substantive information; (e) N  o response. This classification helped assess the responsiveness of States to communications handled by the Special Rapporteur and assisted the Human Rights Council in its task of evaluating the effectiveness of the mandate. Source : A/HRC/14/24 and Add.1. Human Rights Indicators 53