IV. >> Illustrating the Framework - Indicators for Some Rights >> Selecting the indicators outcome indicators may not be directly dependent on efforts within the framework of State obligations. Thus, improved longevity or lower infant mortality is known to be correlated with lifestyle practices, eating habits, education and some environmental parameters. It is worthwhile including indicators that reflect such concerns because of their importance to the realization of that right and to facilitate priority-setting and effort-targeting by the duty bearer. The articulation of indicators, where feasible, is influenced by the need to highlight the “accessibility” rather than merely the “availability” dimension. Thus, for instance, for the right to adequate food, a process indicator has been formulated as “proportion of targeted population that was brought above the poverty line” and not in terms of the “public resources allocated to poverty alleviation”. Similarly, a right-to-fair-trial indicator seeks information on “the proportion of juveniles in custody receiving education / vocational training by trained teachers for the same number of hours as students of that age at liberty”. In selecting and formulating the indicators, it is necessary to keep the State’s obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights in mind.5 An appropriate combination of structural, process and outcome indicators, along with the use of multiple data sources, helps in assessing the implementation of these three obligations. So while an outcome indicator like “infant mortality rate” based on administrative data may reveal an overall failure of the State party to meet the three obligations, it may not be able to distinguish which of the three are indeed violated. However, for the process indicators it may be easier to have a formulation that helps in identifying the specific obligations that may or may not have been met. Moreover, the use of events-based data on human rights violations, given their nature and the methodology for collecting relevant information, makes it relatively easy to derive indicators that relate specifically to the obligations to respect, protect or fulfil. The indicators identified in the tables are primarily based on two types of data-generating mechanisms: (a) indicators that are or can be compiled by official statistical systems using censuses, statistical surveys and/or administrative records; and (b) indicators or standardized information more generally compiled by national human rights institutions and civil society sources focusing on alleged violations reported by victims, witnesses or NGOs. The intention has been to explore and exhaust the use of commonly available information, particularly from objective data sets that can be easily quantified for tracking human rights implementation. Some examples for formulating the tables are set out below. 3 Some illustrations Table on the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health The attributes of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health are primarily based on a reading of the normative content of the right, as enshrined in article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and reflected in general comment No. 14 (2000) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.6 The five attributes 5. The three obligations are defined in chap. I, sect. A. 6. See also general recommendation No. 24 (1999) of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and general comments Nos. 3 (2003) and 4 (2003) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Article 6 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 5 (e) (iv) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, articles 12 and 14 (2) (b) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 80 Human Rights Indicators