Defending Dignity A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions on Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 16.5.3. Special procedures mandate holders Several special procedures mechanisms intervene directly with governments on specific allegations of violations of human rights that come within their mandates. The process, in general, involves the mandate holder sending a letter to the concerned State to request information and comments on the allegation and, where necessary, asking that preventive or investigatory action be taken. The decision to intervene is at the discretion of the mandate holder and will depend on the various criteria established by him or her. OHCHR advises that communications requesting the mandate holder to intervene should outline: • The alleged victim(s): individual(s), community, group, etc. • The alleged perpetrator(s) of the violation: including non-State actors if relevant. • The person(s) or organization(s) submitting the communication: as a general rule, the identity of the source of information on the alleged violation is always kept confidential • Date, place and detailed description of the circumstances of the incident(s) or violation: the information submitted can refer to violations that are said to have already occurred, that are ongoing or about to occur. Letters from mandate holders can be useful in addressing individual cases, as well as drawing attention to general trends and patterns of human rights violations, cases affecting a particular group or community, or the content of draft or existing legislation considered to be not fully compatible with international human rights standards. As with other international mechanisms, the information provided should be concise and well-evidenced. 16.6. EVALUATING IMPACT Like all activities that NHRIs undertake, it is important to evaluate the monitoring activity to identify the outcomes it achieved and the impact it had on the ground. There are a multitude of methods that can be employed to evaluate a particular monitoring activity. Evaluations can be internal or external; they can be conducted immediately after an activity or over a longer time period; and they can be quantitative or qualitative. Nevertheless, all evaluations should focus on answering at least the following broad questions: • What went well? • What could have been done better? • What do the stakeholders think of the monitoring activity, in terms of its process and outcomes? • What results were achieved? • What lessons have we learned for future monitoring activities? A good approach is to evaluate the monitoring activity against the objectives you set at the start of the process, asking a key question about each objective. 16.7. IN PRACTICE: PREPARING FOR ADVOCACY The actions outlined in this chapter – finalizing your report, developing additional advocacy materials and carrying out follow up activities with national and international accountability mechanisms – can all be incorporated into an advocacy strategy. This should be developed around the time that you draft the report or earlier. Similar to the research plan, it should clearly identify what needs to be done, by whom and by when. Indicators for measuring the impact of your monitoring activity should also be included. A stakeholder map is another useful tool that can assist in the preparation of an advocacy strategy. Stakeholders include anyone involved or impacted by the change you are seeking (e.g. members of affected communities, the media, government officials). 162