Defending Dignity A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions on Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights It is good practice to circulate a draft of your report to solicit comments from stakeholders who have been involved in your research. There is a chance, however, that you might receive conflicting comments; for example, about whether accessibility to or quality of a particular service should be more of a priority, or about what contextual factors are the most relevant. It may not be possible to integrate all the comments you receive, so responsibility for agreeing on the final draft should be clearly defined. If there is a major difference of opinion among NHRI team members or other stakeholders about the report’s findings and conclusions, and there is a failure to come to an agreement, it might be necessary to note the difference of opinion in the final draft. Before finalizing the report, it is also important to validate the report with the rights holders involved in the study and to give the relevant duty bearers the opportunity to make an official response. 16.1.1. Validating your report with the community The findings, conclusions and recommendations in your report must be relevant to the local context and the local constraints. This could be confirmed by holding community validation workshops, for example. When presenting your report to an affected community, some questions to ask include: • Is the information presented an accurate reflection of the situation? • Does the analysis correctly identify which rights are not realized, who is affected, what the authorities are doing, who the stakeholders are, and what should be done to improve the situation? If not, what should be clearer? • What other comments or recommendations are there? Sharing the draft report can also encourage a sense of investment in and ownership of the report and its findings, which is crucial to build public support and sustain the pressure on relevant decision makers to act on the report’s recommendations. 16.1.2. Requesting an official state response Some NHRIs share their draft reports with relevant government stakeholders prior to publishing them, as a matter of standard practice. This is an important strategy. It can encourage a broader search for solutions, for example. Even in cases where a request for an official response is not answered, the fact that a request was made but unanswered can be noted in the report. There may, however, be circumstances where the NHRI does not want to share the report in advance. For example, there may be a risk that the Government could use the draft report to prepare a media campaign to discredit the research and refute its findings. It is therefore important to consider potential reactions the Government might have to the report: Is it like to engage substantively in the implementation of your recommendations? Engage, with limited commitment, in implementing some of your recommendations? Engage, but not agree with your findings? Ignore the report and not even read it? Be completely against your report and discredit the findings? The answers to these questions will influence the way you go about advocating for action on the report. 16.1.3. Other factors to consider To have a positive impact, a report needs to be able to withstand critical bureaucratic and academic examination, as well as be read and understood by a wider audience. Other factors about how the report is presented will also influence its effectiveness, such as: • The title, which should communicate in an official way what the report is about, but can also communicate a stronger message by expressing a key message in a few words • The cover, which might include a photograph, drawing or some kind of illustration to communicate the key message in a visual format 154