Strengthen a national mechanism (NMIRF)

This page seeks to identify key ingredients for a well-functioning and efficient national mechanism for implementation, reporting and follow-up, drawing on different State practices, while not proposing a one-size-fits-all solution.

In addition to ensuring that the right institutional framework is put in place, with a mandate which corresponds to the desired objectives, a national mechanism's functioning and efficiency can be scaled up when the mechanism's capacity to engage with international and regional mechanisms is adequately addressed and when coordination processes among state entities are institutionally built.

This page seeks to provide key guidance and resources to understand how engagement and coordination can be strengthened to enable national mechanisms meet their objectives of effective reporting, follow-up and, in some cases, implementation.

This page also shows that strengthened NMIRFs entail, in any given context, the capacity to meaningfully consult with a variety of independent stakeholders including the national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and civil society organizations, human rights defenders or marginalized groups.

Finally, experience has shown that given the wealth of information such national mechanisms deal with, they can only be efficient when they are supported by fit for purpose information management tools including digital tracking tools and databases.

The engagement capacity of a national mechanism refers to its capacity to:

• Engage and liaise with international and regional human rights bodies (in the context of reporting, interactive dialogues or facilitation of visits by special procedure mandate holders or the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture);

• Organize and centrally facilitate the preparation of reports to international and regional human rights mechanisms, and of responses to communications and follow-up questions and recommendations/decisions received from such mechanisms.

National mechanisms for reporting and follow-up could strengthen this capacity through annual planning as well as standardized reporting guidelines and procedures.

Coordination among different parts and levels of government is instrumental in ensuring that human rights reports cover relevant information and are coherent and that the recommendations from international human rights mechanisms reach the relevant ministries and different branches of the State. This is achieved primarily through the composition of the membership of national mechanisms. Most participants reported that, in addition to focal points from line ministries, their national mechanisms included representatives of parliament, the judiciary and national statistical offices. When these entities were not standing members of national mechanisms, participants reported that established institutional lines of coordination were established with them. Some also emphasized the importance of including representatives of local and regional governments to contribute to implementation, reporting and follow-up of the international obligations of the State.

Concrete impact can be seen as a result of:

• A change in the membership of the national mechanism which can lead to seeing human rights increasingly considered in the development of public policies; and, owing to the establishment of a follow-up system, greater involvement by various entities in the implementation of recommendations and their follow-up

The consultation capacity of a national mechanism for implementation, reporting and follow-up refers to its capacity to foster and lead consultations with the country’s NHRI(s) and civil society for the purpose of implementation, reporting and follow-up.

These consultations practices are sometimes context specific and related to the extent to which the civic space allows for such consultations to take place.

Some actors advocate for greater participation of National Human Rights Institutions, Civil society organizations and other stakeholders beyond mere consultation (see external resources on this page).

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NHRIs and NMIRFS

The issue of the interactions and complementarity between National Human Rights Institutions which are to remain independent, and NMIRFs which are government structures, has been the focus of a number of studies and reports outlined below.

Danish Institute for Human Rights

The DIHR publication analyses the interactions between NMIRFs and NHRIs. It looks into international guidance, theory and practice building on interviews in several countries: Interactions between NHRIs and NMIRFs: Research and Recommendations | The Danish Institute for Human Rights

A short e-learning module gives an introduction the full report: DIHR Learning hub mini module on interactions between NHRIs and NMIRFs

Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions

GANHRI published a position paper and a report on this issue in 2025.

HC report

HRC report 59/65 on "The role of technical cooperation and capacity-building among States, the Office and other relevant stakeholders, including national human rights institutions, to support States’ efforts to strengthen national structures which play a role in promoting and safeguarding human rights, particularly national human rights institutions Summary and national mechanisms for implementation, reporting and follow-up, including the complementarity of the two latter entities"

The Information management capacity

The information management capacity of a national mechanism for implementation, reporting and follow-up refers to its capacity to:

–Track the issuance of recommendations and decisions by the international and regional human rights mechanisms;

–Systematically capture and thematically cluster these recommendations and decisions in a user-friendly spreadsheet or database;

–Identify responsible government ministries and/or agencies for their implementation;

–Develop follow-up plans, including timelines, with relevant ministries to facilitate such implementation; and

–Manage information regarding the implementation of treaty provisions and recommendations, including with a view to preparing the next periodic report. In order to optimize the information management capacity, it is highly recommended that national mechanisms for reporting and follow-up include representatives of the national statistics office.

An increasing number of States use/develop digital tracking tools to enable them to adequately follow-up on recommendations they receive from the international and regional human rights systems.

Some States have concluded technical cooperation agreements with other States to enable the use of these tools. This is the case of Paraguay.

OHCHR has developed the National Recommendations Tracking Database which it makes available to requesting States. This Hub features those States using the NRTD. There are more, whose country pages have not yet been built.

Read an interesting publication mapping existing digital tracking tools The Human Rights Data Revolution by the Geneva Human Rights Platform (2025).

Follow-up and implementation

In order to ensure implementation of their human rights obligations at the national level, States:

• Adopt comprehensive national human rights action plans or thematic action plans
• Mainstream human rights recommendations into sectoral policies
• Make an effort to build coherence and more interactions between human rights reporting and follow-up and other related processes at the national level, including those aimed at achieving the Sustainable Development Goals contained in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

OHCHR provides training to requesting States on how to build this coherence including through the use of digital tracking tools and databases.

Some stakeholders have published guidance on national human rights action planning. This includes:

The Danish Institute for Human Rights

DIHR has created the first comprehensive inventory of all officially adopted NHRAPs (1993-2021): Repository of NHRAPs | The Danish Institute for Human Rights.

Based on this database, a study analyses how and why NHRAPs propagated across the world since the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights: Link: National human rights action plans: An inventory | The Danish Institute for Human Rights

A short e-learning module gives an introduction the full report: DIHR Learning hub mini module on NHRAPs

University of Liverpool and the Global network of National Human Rights Action Planning

Dr Azadeh Chalabi and her team, as part of a funded project by UK-RI (Policy Support Fund), have created the first global network on National Human Rights Action Planning. The objective is to create a lasting platform to share good practices, challenges and possible response strategies to enhance the effectiveness of National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAPs) in different phases. It is intended to lay the ground for the network to embark upon a self-amplifying process to tackle the dynamic challenges facing NHRAPs across the globe.

Existing publications on NHRAPing include Developments and Challenges in Designing NHRAP (see below).