A/HRC/32/31 undertaken concludes that, if they “can be faulted as a group for one thing, it is an insufficient challenge to the material conditions that perpetuate human rights violations”.21 Specialist studies indicate that while a handful of such institutions have devoted significant attention to economic and social rights,22 the vast majority have not. The reasons cited include absent or restrictive mandates, lack of expertise, lack of resources, absence of political support and the complexity of the issues. The bottom line is that few of these “institutions are producing regular, comprehensive reports on ESC rights fulfilment in their countries”.23 39. A key factor in explaining this fundamentally unbalanced approach may be the relative absence in the work of many national human rights institutions of genuinely consultative approaches that would enable the affected communities to influence priorities and approaches and participate in developing policy responses and recommendations. C. Accountability 40. Many books have now been written extolling the virtues of involvement by the courts in enforcing economic and social rights in various countries around the world, but justiciability is by no means the whole story. Indeed, it might be argued that the focus on justiciability has become the tail that is wagging the analytical dog. Rights holders can seek accountability through many means, including: (a) sharing information with the media; (b) using community or peer pressure; (c) collecting and publishing data; (d) complaining to an authoritative body or person; and (e) evaluating and reporting.24 However, most of these methods assume that, at the end of the day, there will be a mechanism in place to which the claim can ultimately be brought for vindication in the absence of self-correction by the duty holder.25 41. All three branches of government offer potential accountability mechanisms for economic and social rights claims. The legislature is, of course, central in terms of its ability to adopt legislation that mandates attention to such rights or that responds to violations. There have also been important initiatives in terms of establishing parliamentary human rights committees and institutionalizing review of draft legislation to ensure compliance with human rights law. In terms of the executive, government officials can monitor economic and social rights realization and incorporate those rights into policymaking and implementation mechanisms. State agencies are also often a logical locus for complaints mechanisms, although they remain strongly underresearched in the economic and social rights field. While national human rights institutions are potentially 21 22 23 24 25 14 Sonia Cardenas, Chains of Justice: The Global Rise of State Institutions for Human Rights (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), p. 360. See Asia Pacific Forum for National Human Rights Institutions and the Center for Economic and Social Rights, Defending Dignity: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions on Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (January 2015); and Eva Brems, Gauthier de Beco, Wouter Vandenhole, eds., National Human Rights Institutions and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Mortsel, Belgium, Intersentia, 2013). Alison Corkery and Duncan Wilson, “Building bridges: national human rights institutions and economic, social and cultural rights”, in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law (see footnote 15), pp. 473-490. United Nations Children’s Fund, Accountability for Children’s Rights: A research mapping of local and informal accountability mechanisms (December 2015), p. 7, available at www.unicef.org/ policyanalysis/rights/files/ACR-SPREADS-WEBFILE.pdf. Varun Gauri, “Redressing grievances and complaints regarding basic service delivery”, World Development, vol. 41 (January 2013), p. 109.