Analytical Process

HRIAs are preceded by a screening process. The purpose of this is to determine the policies for which such assessments must be carried out. This will avoid doing unnecessary HRIAs.

Proper HRIAs start with a baseline assessment. This includes an examination of the current human rights situation through the use of human rights indicators; the scope of the baseline assessment must be defined for this. It also includes an examination of the human rights obligations of the state, and it should outline the objectives of the policy.

The next part of the analytical process is impact analysis. This is the evaluation of the potential impact of future policies on human rights. Policy makers should collaborate with human rights experts and civil society organisations to do the evaluation. They should evaluate the potential violations of the policy on both substantive human rights, including discrimination, and human rights principles.

The last step in the analytical process is the formulation of options to achieve the objectives of a policy. All options considered should be reasonable and should include mitigating measures capable of minimising negative impact of human rights. Consideration should also be given to options like compensation. However this option should only be considered if a policy must be adopted for imperative reasons and no mitigating measures exist to reduce its negative impact. The option of the non-adoption of a policy must also be examined.

Deliberative Process

The deliberative process consists of two steps: deliberation and decision making.

Debating options require consultations to be organised with people affected by policies. This will inform policy makers about their preferences. It also gives affected people the opportunity to claim their rights. It must be remembered, however, that consultations will not necessarily result in agreements between participants. Consultations are followed by a HRIA statement made by policy makers.

Decisions must follow deliberations. Decisions are made by decision makers, which are the political bodies that adopt state policies and bear responsibility for them. It is important to put safeguards in place to guarantee that they take HRIAs into consideration when making such decisions. HRIAs can guide them in the implementation of human rights. Indeed, states have the right to realise human rights by taking their particularities into account. Thus they have a margin of appreciation when implementing human rights. HRIAs can help them stay within this margin of appreciation.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The last phase of HRIA is monitoring and evaluation.

Monitoring is the examination of the effects of a policy during its implementation. It identifies the immediate changes brought about in the human rights situation. If human rights appear to be negatively affected, the policy should either be modified or abandoned as soon as possible. Policies should be flexible to allow this.

This step also includes an examination of the way in which HRIAs were conducted.

Evaluation aims to determine the actual impact of policies on human rights. It relates therefore to ex post HRIAs, and it should be done as a collaborative exercise involving all the different actors involved in the HRIA (see Challenges).

Evaluation relies on the human rights indicators established in the analytical process. The purpose is to compare the current situation with the situation before the policy was adopted. This will reveal negative human rights impact which could result in violations of human rights.

Ex post HRIAs will help policy makers to predict the likely human rights impact of future policies. They are a way to improve ex ante HRIAs. HRIA steps should therefore be repeated on an ongoing basis to perform the instrument. In other words a cyclical approach is required.