IV. >> Illustrating the Framework - Indicators for Some Rights >> Putting indicators into context and building country ownership indicators.15 The focus also has to be on factoring in the customary practices and institutions unique to the country while formulating the structural indicators. Similarly, for the outcome indicators, the illustrative formulation may have to be customized to reflect the local focus on certain target population groups or overcome the capacity and data constraints. The main task of contextualization relates to the process indicators. For them, the country’s level of socioeconomic development, its population groups identified as being vulnerable, marginalized or at risk of discrimination and, hence, targeted through public interventions, the nature of its public policies and programmes and its capacity constraints on data collection will determine the contextually appropriate formulation. In using the framework of structural, process and outcome indicators, the objective has been to cover consistently and comprehensively indicators that can reflect the commitment-effort-result aspects of the realization of human rights. In the final analysis, it may not matter if an indicator is identified as a process or outcome indicator so long as it captures relevant aspect(s) of an attribute of a right or the right in general. Working with such a configuration of indicators simplifies the selection of indicators, encourages the use of contextually relevant information, facilitates a more comprehensive coverage of the human rights standards, can help in organizing the collection of information among national stakeholders and minimize the overall number of indicators required to monitor the realization of a right in any context. Finally, the framework enables the potential users to make an informed choice on the type of indicator and level of disaggregation that best reflect the contextual requirements for implementing a human right or some attributes of a right, while recognizing the full scope of obligations on the relevant human right standards. 15. For instance, when the Human Rights Committee is concerned “about the low level of participation of women in public affairs, and that women continue to have a disproportionately low presence in the political and economic life of the State party, particularly in senior positions of public administration (arts. 2, 3 and 26)” and states that the “State party should take immediate steps to change public attitude towards the suitability of women for positions in public affairs and consider adopting a policy of positive action” and should take “appropriate measures to ensure the effective participation of women in political, public and other sectors of the State party” (CCPR/CO/82/ALB, para. 11), the use of some outcome indicators (e.g., proportion of relevant positions in the public and private sectors held by women), structural indicators (e.g., date of entry into force of special and temporary measures to ensure or accelerate equality in the enjoyment of rights by women) and process indicators (e.g., budget spent on an awareness campaign for promoting the participation of women in public affairs) becomes meaningful. 86 Human Rights Indicators