A/HRC/4/18 page 6 7. Second, for indicators to be useful in monitoring the implementation of human rights, it is important that they be explicitly and precisely defined, based on an acceptable and participatory methodology of data collection and presentation, and available on a regular basis. 8. Third, it is essential that the approach used for identifying indicators be simple, systematic and comprehensive. At the same time, it should be flexible in order to reflect, in the selection of specific indicators, contextual concerns at the national and subnational levels. Finally, the framework adopted to assess the implementation of human rights has to capture, through the selection of suitable indicators, both the effort being made by States parties in implementing particular human rights standards and the outcome of those efforts. 9. Taking these concerns into account, the focus in this report is on identifying from the available data, to the extent feasible, illustrative indicators that as a starting point translate the narrative on the legal standard of the right (such as article 11 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and general comments No. 4 and No. 7 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) into a specific number of characteristic attributes that facilitate the identification of indicators for monitoring the implementation of the right. Thus, for instance, the annexed list identifies four attributes (essential elements) of the right to adequate housing: habitability, accessibility to services, housing affordability, and security of tenure. Having identified the attributes of the right in a mutually exhaustive manner, the next step is to identify a configuration of structural-process-outcome indicators. 10. Structural indicators. These are indicators that reflect the ratification/adoption of legal instruments and the existence of basic institutional mechanisms deemed necessary for facilitating realization of the particular human right. Among the structural indicators, which are likely to be qualitative in nature rather than quantitative, one could consider indicators such as “time frame and coverage of national housing policy statements/strategies for the progressive implementation of measures for the right to adequate housing at different levels of Government, as applicable”. 11. Process indicators. These relate State policy instruments with milestones, which in turn cumulate into outcome indicators that could be more directly related to realization of human rights. Such indicators contribute to assessing an important aspect of the notion of accountability. Unlike outcome indicators, process indicators are more sensitive to changes, and are thus better at reflecting progressive realization of the right and States parties’ efforts in protecting the rights, including their obligation as stated in article 2 of ICESCR.7 Thus, indicators like “share of public development budget spent on social/community housing” capture the effort of the State party in meeting its obligation to protect and promote the right to adequate housing. 12. Outcome indicators. These capture attainments, individual and collective, that reflect the status of realization of a human right in a given context. Outcome indicators have two important features. First, as mentioned, they are more directly related to the realization of the 7 “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps … to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means … .”