34 INTEGRATING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INTO THE WORK OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS OF THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION their understanding of the core focus of reproductive rights. One respondent suggested that the association of reproductive rights with health rights was almost uniform across the institution. Some added that bringing reproductive rights under the rubric of the right to health was a useful (or even vital) means of de-sensitizing the issue. Confusion and lack of knowledge about reproductive rights within NHRIs appears to reflect the relatively unstructured and crosscutting nature of this area of rights. It was noted by many NHRIs that, unlike some other areas of their work, reproductive rights do not enjoy a strong and unified international legislative and policy framework. There is no detailed and definitive explanation of reproductive rights as understood under international law. There is also no international committee or body dedicated to monitoring reproductive rights. In the words of one respondent, “it is difficult to weave together the various instruments into a simplified, basic reference framework for reproductive rights.” Several NHRIs pointed out that they had been unable to access a concise statement of reproductive rights: the introduction to the questionnaire for the present study was, for several NHRIs, the very first coherent articulation of reproductive rights they had ever seen. “To be honest, we don’t really know much about reproductive rights. Before this [completing the questionnaire] I could not really have told you what reproductive rights really were”. NHRI Respondent: telephone communication All NHRIs emphasized that lack of knowledge of reproductive rights extends to their constituencies. Rights-holders, most particularly women and girls, were seen to be uninformed about reproductive rights and unaware of the entitlements of protection and respect that these rights bring. Some NHRIs identified particular groups in relation to which lack of knowledge about reproductive rights was felt to be especially troubling. In most cases these groups are characterised by their relative isolation (rural women and girls, women and girl members of minority groups, conservative religious women and girls) or a particular set of vulnerabilities (disabled women and girls, migrant workers, sex workers). Several NHRIs pointed out that lack of knowledge among rights holders impacted on the work of the institution. An absence of complaints of violations of reproductive rights is one example. Lack of knowledge and awareness was also identified among those responsible for protecting and respecting reproductive rights including government officials, health workers and employers. Widespread confusion and lack of knowledge about reproductive rights has a cascading effect on the ability of NHRIs to effectively integrate these rights into their work. Within the institution, officials working on training, outreach and monitoring may have a commitment to reproductive rights but insufficient knowledge or skills to incorporate the issue into their work. The most obvious result is that the NHRI does not engage on the issue at all. However, such lack of engagement also means that the NHRI itself is unable to contribute to raising awareness amongst rights-holders and duty-bearers. This contributes to a cyclical situation whereby those in a position to bring issues (or even allegations of violations) to the attention of the NHRI are not