I. Introduction
In the past 15 years, the scope and nature of cultural rights, as well as corresponding obligations and ways of implementing those rights, have been greatly clarified. This category of rights, which, in the past, was easily dismissed as being vague, is now developed as the result of the guidance of the Special Rapporteur, treaty bodies and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), State practice and the work of civil society. It is not an understatement to say that cultural rights are experiencing a revolution.1 The time has come to formalize the main cultural rights indicators, so that they can be used to support and assess the implementation of such rights.
- For additional information, see the website of the Special Rapporteur, available at www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights. ↩
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur sets forth indicators that will enable States to assess the extent to which they respect, protect and ensure the enjoyment of cultural rights. Like other indicators, cultural rights indicators can be used to measure the efficacy of programmes and policies, provide outcome-based accountability with regard to States’ obligations and develop policies for the implementation of cultural rights.2 They can also be used by civil society organizations to make their own assessments and suggest priority measures to be adopted at the national level, as well as a guide in developing cultural goal claims. As confirmed by OHCHR, collecting cultural rights indicators is a necessary practice, as human rights indicators generally make “human rights more … tangible in the eyes of policymakers” and help to trace “the entire range of measures” that are needed to protect and fulfil rights.3
- See the five basic uses common to all indicator frameworks in Brett Brown and Thomas Corbett, Social Indicators and Public Policy in the Age of Devolution, Institute for Research on Poverty, Special Report, No. 71 (1997), p. 14. ↩
- Human Rights Indicators: A Guide for Measurement and Implementation (United Nations publication, 2012), p. 112. ↩
Cultural rights indicators do not aim to create rights, nor do they enhance the protection of cultural rights. They are a subset of the wider, well-established category of human rights indicators4 and are designed to serve as goals for the implementation of cultural rights and the coordination of activities in States, as well as means of facilitating the monitoring of cultural rights, namely, the rights that protect the development and expression of cultural identities. At their core, cultural rights empower individuals and groups to express their humanity, worldviews and the meanings they attribute to their existence and development through various forms of human expressions. This can include the arts, cultural heritage or languages, as well as the sciences, knowledge, convictions, religions and beliefs, sports and games, rites and ceremonies, production methods, technology, institutions and livelihoods, connections with nature and the environment, food and dress and ways of life. They also encompass the rights to access and participate in heritage and the resources that facilitate these processes of identification and development, as well as to contribute to decision-making processes that have an impact on cultural rights.
- Ibid. ↩
In the preparation of the present report, the Special Rapporteur sent a questionnaire to States and other stakeholders in which she requested information about the signs that people identified as being indicators of whether cultural diversity and cultural rights were respected in their country, as well as the various methods developed to assess that and to monitor the implementation of cultural rights. She also asked for suggestions about additional indicators that could or should be developed to improve the implementation of cultural rights. The Special Rapporteur warmly thanks the 100 entities that responded for their useful inputs, which have informed her reflections and helped shape the report.5
- The questionnaire and all submissions are available at www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2026/call-inputs-assessing-implementation-cultural-rights. ↩
II. State of art in the field of cultural rights indicators
Neither scholars nor human rights bodies have developed a widely accepted set of cultural rights indicators. The present report therefore fills an essential gap. There is a wide range of academic literature that deals with principles that are applicable, in general, to all human rights indicator frameworks,6 to the broader category of economic, social and cultural rights7 and to aspects of culture.8
- Margaret Satterthwaite, “Measuring human rights: indicators, expertise, and evidence-based practice”, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), vol. 106 (2012); United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000 (2000); Human Rights Indicators: A Guide for Measurement and Implementation; and Sally Engle Merry, The Seductions of Quantification: Measuring Human Rights, Gender Violence, and Sex Trafficking (University of Chicago Press, 2016). ↩
- Sital Kalantry, Jocelyn E. Getgen and Steven A. Koh, “Enhancing enforcement of economic, social, and cultural rights using indicators: a focus on the right to education in the ICESCR”, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 32 (2010); and Audrey Chapman, “Development of indicators for economic, social and cultural rights: the rights to education, participation in cultural life and access to the benefits of science”, in Human Rights in Education, Science and Culture: Legal Developments and Challenges, Yvonne Donders and Vladimir Volodin, eds. (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2007). ↩
- Andrea Boggio and Brian Gran, “A proposal for indicators of the human right to science”, in The Right to Science: Then and Now, Helle Porsdam and Sebastian Porsdam Mann, eds. (Cambridge University Press, 2021); Yvonne Donders and Annamari Laaksonen, “Finding ways to measure the cultural dimension of human rights and development”, Amsterdam Centre for International Law, 2009; Christopher Madden, “Indicators for arts and cultural policy: a global perspective”, Cultural Trends, vol. 14, No. 3 (2005); and Helmut K. Anheier and Yudhishthir Raj Isar, Conflicts and Tensions, The Cultures and Globalization Series (Sage Publication, 2007), pp. 333 onward. ↩
In international human rights practice, various efforts have been made to develop and propose tools and indicators that aim to facilitate the assessment of human rights implementation. The periodic reports that States are required to submit to the treaty monitoring bodies and in the context of the universal periodic review provide important legal and political analysis. OHCHR provides what is, perhaps, the most influential and comprehensive model of human rights indicator frameworks.9 The relevant reports of OHCHR10 provide important guidance and set out the elements of a common understanding of a human rights-based approach to data to be used in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In this framework, the key principles of participation of all relevant persons and groups and of self-identification, which are presented as central elements, are strongly aligned with cultural rights.
- A human rights indicator is defined as “specific information on the state or condition of an object, event, activity or outcome that can be related to human rights norms and standards; that addresses and reflects human rights principles and concerns; and that can be used to assess and monitor the promotion and implementation of human rights”. See Human Rights Indicators: A Guide for Measurement and Implementation, p. 16. ↩
- See Human Rights Indicators: A Guide for Measurement and Implementation; and OHCHR, “A human rights-based approach to data: leaving no one behind in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, 2018. ↩
OHCHR groups indicators into three categories, namely, structural, process and outcome, with a view to reflecting a State’s “acceptance, intent and commitment” to take measures in keeping with its human rights obligations. Structural indicators reflect the legal acceptance of a right by States. These indicators are used primarily to assess whether States have ratified and adopted the relevant instruments and incorporated their provisions into domestic laws and policies. Process indicators are used to continuously assess “policies and specific measures taken by the duty bearer to implement commitments”. These generally take the form of “public programmes for development and governance, budget allocations and specific regulatory or redress intervention”. Finally, outcome indicators reflect the extent to which rights are actually enjoyed within States.11
- Human Rights Indicators: A Guide for Measurement and Implementation, pp. 34–37. ↩
It is imperative that States not monitor one category of indicators exclusively or emphasize one over another. Structural indicators do not take into account the lived experiences of individuals and groups; the recognition of cultural rights is meaningless unless those rights are enjoyed by the population. Indicators that are focused only on outcomes do not reflect the need for strong, lasting structures that will sustain cultural rights into the future. OHCHR makes clear that indicators in all categories should also reflect the norms that cut across the entire human rights system: non-discrimination, participation, accountability and effective remedy.12
- Ibid, pp. 38–41. ↩
Other international organs, including the Council of Europe and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as well as the inter-American human rights system, have published indicators that are used to monitor cultural rights. Launched in 2019, the UNESCO Culture|2030 Indicators,13 the thematic indicators developed by UNESCO for culture in the context of the 2030 Agenda, have contributed greatly to the development of specific targets and indicators that monitor aspects of cultural rights, in particular, freedom of artistic expression and creativity and scientific freedom. These indicators are not anthropocentric and were not created in order to assess cultural rights; they are aligned with the mission of UNESCO to protect cultural heritage and cultural diversity in the context of the 2030 Agenda. Assessing the protection of heritage and diversity can be indicative of the status of cultural rights, but that is not always the case. The ongoing violation of the cultural rights of the Masai people in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, a UNESCO world heritage site, is a clear example of this.14
- UNESCO Culture|2030 Indicators. Available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/culture2030indicators/. ↩
- See communication TZA 3/2021 and response of 8 April 2022. All communications mentioned in the present report are available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments. See also Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Situation of the Maasai Indigenous Peoples in the United Republic of Tanzania, statement 1, 2026. ↩
The Indicator Framework on Culture and Democracy,15 which the Council of Europe launched in 2016, is more focused on assessing how cultural participation builds open, tolerant and democratic societies. It provides decision makers with evidence to assess cultural policies and uses indicators that are of a more qualitative nature. Unfortunately, it uses a restrictive definition of culture that leaves out major parts of the current understanding of culture, including visions, cosmology and methodologies, and adopts a rather limited notion of participation in the light of contemporary cultural rights standards.
- Council of Europe, Indicator Framework on Culture and Democracy: Policy Maker’s Guidebook (2016). ↩
In 2015, the Organization of American States (OAS) published the Progress Indicators for Measuring Rights under the Protocol of San Salvador, which included indicators for the “right to the benefits of culture”.16 This regional framework includes a broad understanding of culture. In addition, it maintains the OHCHR categories of indicators (structural, process and outcome) and includes a gender-based approach and an emphasis on children and young people, the elderly, persons with disabilities and cultural diversity. The indicators were approved by the Permanent Council of OAS “on the understanding that these are guidelines and criteria for the states parties, which will be able to adapt them to the sources of information available to them in order to comply with the provisions of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘Protocol of San Salvador’”. In 2022, the Human Rights Programme of the National Autonomous University of Mexico updated these indicators using the national reports submitted to the Working Group of the Protocol of San Salvador. Their findings indicate that although cultural rights are recognized in constitutions, there is a dearth of public policy and funding to support the implementation of such rights.
- Working Group of the Protocol of San Salvador, “Progress indicators for measuring rights under the Protocol of San Salvador: second group of rights”, OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1, GT/PSS/doc.9/13, 5 November 2013. ↩
Indicators that are focused on specific sections of the population may also be of great assistance. In this respect, the Indigenous Navigator, which monitors implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Qualitative Minority Indicators,17 which was created for the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, both include some cultural rights indicators. The Indigenous Navigator includes indicators on the establishment of cultural institutions, cultural self-determination and “cultural integrity”. Although somewhat vague, those indicators are quite interesting in view of the great emphasis that is placed in the Declaration on the cultural rights of Indigenous Peoples and the recognition of detailed rights. Similarly, the Qualitative Minority Indicators include specific indicators on the cultural rights of national minorities. These are divided among laws and policies, enforcement and monitoring. Both indicator frameworks favour qualitative indicators that are invaluable in the context of the present exercise.
- Francesco Biagini, Katarzyna Zbrowska, Tove H. Malloy, Qualitative Minority Indicators: The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (European Centre for Minority Issues, 2016). ↩
The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the production of cultural rights indicators by some States, including Australia,18 New Zealand,19 Mexico20 and Côte d’Ivoire,21 opening the way for others to do so. The New Zealand cultural indicators address five areas, namely, cultural engagement, cultural identity, diversity, social cohesion and economic development. In addition, they adopt a multicultural approach and include indicators on Māori and minority groups’ cultural resources. This is not always the case. Other States restrict indicators to their understanding of the “national culture”, or restrict culture to a narrow understanding of the cultural sector only. Some States may not have a comprehensive list of cultural rights indicators. Instead, they set out specific directions for the implementation of cultural rights through action plans. A pioneering example of that approach is the Cultural Rights Plan (2024–2030) of Spain, which incorporates a rights-based approach into official statistics. These statistics, which cover social and community dimensions, active cultural practices and education, strengthen the analysis of existing barriers to cultural participation.
- Kay Ferres and others, Vital Signs: Cultural Indicators for Australia (Cultural Ministry Council, 2011). ↩
- New Zealand, Ministry for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Indicators for New Zealand (2009). ↩
- Submission from Programa Universitario de Derechos Humanos, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, annex 1. ↩
- Submission from Conseil National des Droits de l’Homme, Côte d’Ivoire. ↩
At the international level, intense work is currently being carried out by a coalition of stakeholders, including civil society, local governments, UNESCO and other international actors and the Special Rapporteur, to advocate for a culture goal in the future development agenda and for a stronger transversal integration of the cultural dimensions in existing frameworks.22 Much work is being done to produce comprehensive, realistic and clear indicators that can be used to assess the contribution of culture in achieving sustainable peace and development. The Special Rapporteur strongly supports these efforts to fill the gap in the post-2030 agenda and ensure that a new goal will protect both cultural resources and the cultural rights of individuals and groups to express, practice and develop their identities, knowledge, values, aspirations and ways of life and to freely participate in all aspects of cultural life.
- See the campaign website for the members and concrete proposals at https://culture2030goal.net/. See also A/77/290. ↩
III. Challenges: accepting the complexity of cultural rights
Producing cultural rights indicators poses specific challenges. Cultural rights manifest through, inter alia, lived realities, ceremonies, languages, artistic expressions, science and knowledge systems, relationships with nature and the environment, including ancestral lands, and ways of life. It is essential not to perceive culture as an outcome-driven concept, and to understand the intrinsic and dynamic value of cultural resources for the development of all societies and the implementation of all human rights. Such value is not easily measured by quantitative data and sometimes cannot be measured at all. The expression “cultural life” refers to culture as a living process – historical, dynamic and evolving, with a past, a present and a future.23
- Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 21 (2009), para. 11. ↩
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur was wary of oversimplifying cultural expressions that are necessarily complex and contextually variable so that they fit into unambiguous, “objective” and standardized criteria. Human creativity, and the freedom necessary for it to flourish, cannot always be measured, and certainly not quantitatively measured. Cultural rights indicators must not be subject to political instrumentalization or marketization objectives only. They must not contribute to an “audit culture” or a centralized box-ticking exercise in the governance machinery. They should not prioritize experts’ opinions over lived experiences and stakeholders’ expertise, in particular local expertise. Cultural rights should be assessed with the understanding that, in all contexts, culture is embedded in everyday life, rather than being confined to a specific sector. Indicators should therefore capture the continuity of lived cultural practices and voluntary participation, in addition to formal or quantitative measurements.
The Special Rapporteur is concerned by the narrow definitions of “culture” and “participation” that are used in some indicator frameworks. For example, although the Indicator Framework on Culture and Democracy of the Council of Europe defines participation as “a way of increasing [a person’s] own cultural and informational capacity and capital, which helps define their identity, and/or allows for personal expression”, it gives creating art, watching a film or volunteering for a cultural organization24 as examples of participation, while the related explanatory report notes that “active cultural participation refers primarily to artistic expression and creation”.25 This is not in accordance with standards set by relevant United Nations treaty bodies and Special Rapporteurs and weakens the implementation of cultural rights.
Similarly, most indicators for “cultural participation” fall short of the human right to participate in cultural life. That right also includes political and economic participation in a manner that is attuned to the values, visions, aspirations and priorities of individuals and groups in their diversity and consistent with their methodologies and ways of life. The UNESCO Culture|2030 Indicators for “inclusion and participation” address multiple dimensions and have a lot of positives, not least the inclusion of qualitative indicators and a dedicated part on cultural participation, something that is not often found.26 They do not, however, fully cover the cultural rights standards. The OHCHR human rights indicators provide a helpful basis for developing indicators in this category.27 All stakeholders working on cultural rights indicators must ensure that the concepts they use are consistent with the cultural rights standards; otherwise, they will weaken the rights rather than strengthen their implementation.
Defining and selecting indicators are not neutral exercises. Indicators should be at the service of policy, not the contrary, and should not become an end in themselves, favouring action that is measurable and comparable over more complex policymaking that is necessary for the implementation of rights.
The choice and design of specific indicators should also not serve or amplify power structures. Evaluation methodologies and global frameworks have granted disproportionate power and sometimes resources to academia and State institutions, taking away power from communities. Cultural rights indicators must not lead to the denial of certain kinds of knowledge; instead, they should be inclusive of various methodologies, sciences and tools, in order to be truly universal. The Special Rapporteur, in her report on the right to participate in science, explained the importance of “everyone” participating in science and of communities leading processes, supported by academia.28 With respect to Indigenous Peoples in particular, indicators often fail to capture their realities and visions, especially the collective and land-based dimensions of their cultures.
- See A/HRC/55/44. ↩
In essence, cultural rights indicators, although of utmost importance, have to be very carefully reflected upon, so that they do not become vehicles of power structures and hierarchies and instead serve as vehicles of diversity and inclusion.
IV. Indicators
A set of indicators aiming to monitor the implementation of the full spectrum of cultural rights must address the rights to access to, participate in and contribute to cultural life. Many of the indicators proposed below can already be monitored nationally, and they must be viewed as tools that help States assess their situation, adopt priorities in line with their core obligations under international human rights law and deepen their interaction with human rights monitoring mechanisms, such as the United Nations treaty bodies.
To the extent possible, the proposed list of indicators follows the structural, process and outcome categories used by OHCHR. The list includes existing indicators that address important aspects of cultural rights and new indicators for which methodology and data may need to be better developed.
Responses to the questionnaire showed that there are numerous ways by which people perceive whether cultural diversity is respected, participation is culturally adequate and cultural freedoms can be exercised by all. What is lacking in many cases is the systematic collection and analysis of that data. The submissions also provided insight about the various tools that already at the disposal of States, which can be combined to assess the implementation of cultural rights and could be much better used to monitor and report on the implementation of these rights to the treaty monitoring bodies and in the context of the universal periodic review.
A. Conditions necessary for the enjoyment of cultural rights
As human rights are indivisible and interconnected, cultural rights indicators cannot be discussed outside the context of the wider human rights system. The development and implementation of cultural rights depend on a general State environment where all can exercise freedoms, make choices without fear or dire consequences and have real opportunities to enjoy cultural life.
In that connection, the following are some important indicators:
(a) Number of registered or active non-governmental organizations that are involved in the promotion and protection of cultural rights per 100,000 persons;
(b) Freedom of movement without discrimination and availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability of public spaces for people to meet and gather;
(c) Evidence of the enjoyment of the freedoms of expression, assembly and association, with particular emphasis on measures to address misinformation and disinformation, fundamentalism, hatred and prejudice in the public sphere;
(d) Evidence of public accountability, a democratic environment and regulation of market interests to protect human rights, for example, with respect to the transnational activities of corporations and the development of artificial intelligence;
(e) Respect for human rights and cultural diversity for all and a general atmosphere of freedom and tolerance;
(f) Evidence of an adequate standard of living;
(g) Maximum number of working hours per week and minimum number of paid holidays per year stipulated by law, in order to allow rest, leisure and participation in cultural life.
B. Legislative and institutional recognition of cultural rights
An important set of indicators relates to the formal recognition of human rights within national legislative systems and the existence of safeguards.
Relevant structural indicators include the following:
(a) Ratification of core international human rights treaties and their optional protocols;
(b) Constitutional recognition of cultural rights. Many constitutions around the world protect “culture” or some of its expressions. Although this is a positive step, the recognition and protection of cultural rights as such, or of the right of everyone to participate in cultural life, are an indicator of whether States explicitly value a human rights approach to culture for all;
(c) Date of entry into force and coverage of domestic laws and policies referring to and implementing cultural rights, as defined in international human rights instruments. In several States, legislation protects “culture” or “heritage”. Cultural rights are broader, more focused on the rights of people and necessarily entail respect for cultural diversity;
(d) National recognition and practice of the justiciability of cultural rights and the availability of remedies, in case of violation;29
(e) Existence of a ministry dedicated to cultural issues that is active in the implementation of cultural rights and evidence of collaboration by such a ministry with other ministries, including those responsible for, inter alia, education, sports, sciences, migration, the environment or forestry, and internal affairs. Ministries of culture often focus on protecting assets and expressions of what is considered a national culture and on implementing UNESCO instruments, without linking them to human rights standards on cultural rights for all. In federal states, decentralized responsibilities on cultural matters seem to lead to such ministries to disengage from their cultural rights obligations. When implemented in a participatory manner, decentralization can strengthen cultural rights, bringing decision-making closer to those concerned. However, States still have to maintain oversight in order to fulfil their cultural rights obligations. Evidence of collaboration with other ministries indicates a broad understanding of culture, in accordance with the standards set by relevant United Nations bodies, and of the cross-cutting nature of cultural rights through relevant policies;
(f) Cultural rights training for civil servants from all relevant ministries and public institutions, as well as local authorities, judges and lawyers, among others;
(g) Existence of dedicated institutions for cultural rights. Independent art councils and bodies monitoring the rights of certain marginalized sections of the population have been positive forces for the implementation of cultural rights. The number of persons from vulnerable and marginalized groups leading such institutions is a specific indicator included below;
(h) Number of cultural or human rights institutions that dedicate significant attention to cultural rights issues and have programmes to implement cultural rights, for example, museums and theatres, as well as national commissions for UNESCO and national human rights institutions;
(i) Number of cultural institutions per capita in various categories (e.g., libraries, archives, museums, theatres, cultural centres, schools,30 sports clubs and sports infrastructure) and their distribution across the territory of the country. The distribution of such institutions indicates the extent to which persons from rural or remote areas with a high density of individuals of low socioeconomic, migration or minority backgrounds or from Indigenous Peoples’ territories enjoy cultural resources;
(j) Share of annual national budget dedicated to culture and sciences, disaggregated by type of support (e.g., fixed budget, support to institutions, support to artists and scientists, competitive project grants) and sector of activity (e.g., museum, archives, music, performing arts, visual arts, crafts, university research). Although the share of the national budget is indicative, it is only through data on its distribution that one can understand whether it follows the principles of non-discrimination, substantive equality and rule of law.
The adoption of a wide definition of culture that is in line with the current international human rights approach can be seen in the processes of the States. Relevant indicators include:
(a) Integration of cultural considerations in other areas of public life and inclusion of cultural experts in various decision-making bodies;
(b) List of international and regional treaties related to cultural rights that the State plans to ratify or reservations related to cultural rights (for example, on women rights) that it plans to lift;
(c) Evidence of cultural considerations in national, regional and international reports to human rights monitoring mechanisms and the impact of interactions with such mechanisms on the national cultural rights protection framework. Delays in ratifying treaties or protocols and failing to discuss cultural rights with the relevant monitoring bodies and submit reports all indicate a lack of State commitment to the implementation of cultural rights;
(d) Proportion of complaints received on the right to participate in cultural life, including to access and participate in sciences and sports, investigated and adjudicated by the national human rights institutions, ombudsperson and judicial mechanisms in the past five years and the proportion of those to which the government has responded effectively;
(e) Evidence of formal and regular evaluation of the efficiency of measures adopted to implement cultural rights within the State’s territory;
(f) Evidence of extended impact assessment exercises that include cultural rights elements in all projects that public bodies seek to implement.
Legal and institutional recognition of cultural rights and the establishment of structures that allow their application are important aspects. But these indicators are not sufficient. Human rights must be respected both in law and in practice. Legal recognition does not necessarily ensure the implementation of human rights; human rights monitoring bodies have frequently criticized States for placing too great an emphasis on recognition in their reporting, instead of demonstrating positive outcomes in practice.
C. Non-discrimination, equality and valuing cultural diversity
The non-discrimination principle is essential in implementing all human rights, including cultural rights. States must ensure that there is no discrimination on any grounds in the exercise of cultural rights. This may require the adoption of positive measures to ensure substantive equality31 and implies valuing cultural diversity within the State as a reality that is recognized, respected and integrated in the design, development and implementation of public policies.
- International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, arts. 1.4 and 2.2; and CERD/C/59/Misc.17/Rev.3, para. 20. ↩
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has recognized the link between valuing cultural diversity and ensuring non-discrimination in several documents.32 Formal recognition of diversity in constitutions sets the tone for State policies and practices. The processes and practices to implement such constitutional guarantees and the outcomes of related legislative measures are at the core of cultural rights obligations. If constitutional guarantees for diversity are vague, States may limit the rights of diverse groups in the “interests of defence” or “for public safety” and so forth, and they may suppress dissent and diversity altogether.
- See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general comment No. 32 (2009) and general comment No. 24 (1999). ↩
In addition to the indicators found in other parts of the report, the indicators below ensure that no one is discriminated against on the basis of their diverse identities.
Relevant structural indicators include the following:
(a) Legislation, policies and practices are consistent with the definitions of non-discrimination that are set forth in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations human rights treaty monitoring bodies have repeatedly noted that States adopt restrictive definitions of discrimination that do not encompass all elements of the definitions that are set out in the relevant treaty;
(b) Ratification of international instruments recognizing diversity, including the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions;
(c) Constitutional recognition of cultural diversity in the State’s territory or specific mention of non-dominant groups, especially Indigenous Peoples and national, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, with the aim of guaranteeing their equal rights. Several States in the Americas, including Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador, have incorporated diversity into their constitutions. The Constitution of Morocco of 2011 explicitly indicates that the country’s unity has been forged by the convergence of its Arab-Islamic, Amazigh and Saharo-Hassani components and has been enriched by African, Andalusian, Hebrew and Mediterranean influences. Most States of Latin America recognize Indigenous Peoples as distinct parts of their populations, and some States, such as Guatemala, have adopted specific legislation in that regard. Peasants are recognized in the constitutions of Cuba and Guatemala and in a 2023 constitutional amendment in Colombia;
(d) Constitutional recognition of self-identification, rather than State-imposed definitions, and respecting self-identification in all administrative processes;33
(e) Date of entry into force and coverage of measures that identify and address direct, indirect and structural discrimination against specific sections of the population, including the adoption of positive measures;
(f) Legal provisions protecting the right of learners not to be subjected to indoctrination, including the right not to be taught a particular religion; the freedom of parents to provide their children with a religious and moral education in line with their own convictions and to choose institutions for them other than those established by the public authorities that meet the minimum standards established by the State and are respectful of human rights; and the liberty to establish and direct educational institutions, provided that they respect the right to education and conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State;
(g) Number of minority and Indigenous celebrations included in the State’s calendar and celebrated by all.
- This indicator is also included in the Qualitative Minority Indicators. ↩
Relevant process indicators include the following:
(a) Diversity is integrated in all public institutions. This indicator looks at measures taken by various institutions, including, but not only, cultural institutions, to recognize and reflect diverse cultural resources and heritage in their work, interact with diverse communities and ensure their participation and ensure diversity among their staff. Such measures ensure that visions and priorities are determined not only by the mainstream cultural movement, but take into consideration different suggestions, opinions and reflections. Spain undertook an interesting initiative in which funds were allocated for the revision of museography to recognize historical diversity and redress visions from that past that were excluded;
(b) Number of funded institutions (cultural, media, education and scientific) and cultural projects led by persons belonging to ethnic, linguistic, religious or other minority and marginalized populations;
(c) Critical review of national heritage lists and inventories to assess the representation of diversity in resources registered and protected (e.g., territorial diversity, communities of origin and the heritage resources of women, persons with disabilities and low-income communities) and the existence of participatory methodology to identify and inform new listings;
(d) Recognition of minority and Indigenous customary laws and institutions within the national system, subject to international human rights law;
(e) Existence of media led by migrant, minority and Indigenous communities or dedicated to local issues, and the proportion of persons with migration, minority and Indigenous origin participating in the national media;
(f) Educational institutions, public or private, promoting respect for universal values and the diversity of cultural resources in their curricula and teaching methods;
(g) Review of textbooks and teaching materials to remove discriminatory or derogatory images and messages;
(h) Specialized training for educators on stereotyping and ways to combat discrimination in classrooms.
Relevant outcome indicators include the following:
(a) Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or excluded from cultural life in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law;
(b) Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, disaggregated by sex and gender, age, disability and population group, as well as colour, origin, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status;
(c) Integration of past and living heritage of marginalized populations, particularly Indigenous Peoples, minorities, migrants, persons with disabilities, women and people living in poverty, in mainstream cultural spaces (public spaces, museums, libraries, archives, media, performing arts centres, public school system) in their own terms and narratives;
(d) Proportion of residents participating in cultural activities at least once a year, disaggregated by social categories and marginalized groups. The breakdown into the specific categories is important in order to assess the realization of cultural rights for all. It is important to know to what extent young people, the elderly, women, migrants, minorities, Indigenous Peoples, persons living in the peripheries, persons living in poverty or persons with disabilities access and participate in cultural activities.
The existence of assimilationist policies and practices, the constitutional recognition of a unique ethnicity, culture or religion, the low visibility of peripheral expressions, the persistence of linguistic hegemony and arbitrary restrictions on the use of languages other than the official languages, as well as the unequal distribution of cultural infrastructures, investments and activities across the territory of the country, are violations of cultural rights that quantitative and qualitative indicators can help identify and eradicate.
D. Languages
The right of everyone to use their own language in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination, has been extensively recognized.34 States are expected to take measures to protect lesser-used languages and allow minorities to maintain and develop their own languages and Indigenous Peoples to establish, maintain and develop their linguistic institutions, while being guaranteed the same opportunity to learn the official national languages.
- See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 27; Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. ↩
Relevant structural indicators include the following:
(a) Constitutional or legal recognition of minority and Indigenous languages among the official languages of the State;
(b) Protection of regional, minority, lesser known and Indigenous languages within the State;
(c) Existence of legislation and policies guaranteeing the use of multiple languages in the public sphere and, where necessary, in relationships with public entities and in educational institutions at all levels.
Relevant process indicators include the following:
(a) Existence of policies to facilitate, respect and support efforts to maintain and transmit languages other than the official languages;
(b) Specific guidance to public bodies to ensure that, where a sufficient number of persons speaking a different language in an area is reached, measures are taken to facilitate the use of that language in relationships with public entities;
(c) Existence of educational institutions where minorities and Indigenous Peoples can learn their mother tongue or in their mother tongue;
(d) Existence of basic services and official documents provided in migrant, minority and Indigenous languages and the availability of translators and interpreters when dealing with public bodies and technological systems.
Relevant outcome indicators include the following:
(a) Percentage of schools offering education, including in core modules, of and in national minority or Indigenous languages; and proportion of schools offering education of and in other, non-official languages;
(b) Percentage of the population who are speakers of minority or Indigenous language and the trend over the past five years. For example, the revitalization of the Māori language in New Zealand is a positive indicator of the protection of linguistic rights.
E. Right of everyone to inclusive and quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity
An inclusive, quality education system that is intercultural, both in formal and informal settings and in public or private institutions, ensures that all students enjoy an equitable learning experience in an appropriate environment that is culturally adequate and relevant. It reflects a society that celebrates cultural diversity and allows non-dominant sections of the population to maintain, develop and disseminate their narratives, practices and knowledge in the society.
Relevant structural indicators include the following:
(a) Legislation instructing educational institutions, both public and private, to welcome people of different cultural traditions and promote respect for cultural diversity in their curricula and teaching methods;
(b) Legal prohibition of segregating learners in schools on the basis of their cultural identity or particular situation.
Relevant process indicators include the following:
(a) Review of national primary and secondary curriculum and textbooks, in particular in history, literature, science and art, to ensure respect for cultural diversity and teaching of multiple narratives, including those of non-dominant sections of the population;
(b) Percentage of public funding earmarked for the creation and maintenance of arts and sports programmes for adolescents;
(c) Policies ensuring that all sections of the population, in particular minority and Indigenous Peoples, people of African descent and persons with disabilities, as well as women, contribute inputs during the development of new curricula;
(d) Measures encouraging all communities, including the dominant ones, to re-evaluate their cultural practices in view of international human rights standards. Illiberal practices cannot be justified using culture. States have the responsibility to create the necessary conditions for all groups to revise and revisit their practices, with a view to eradicating practices that violate human rights;
(e) Efforts to develop the intercultural communication competencies of all, in particular civil servants and public authorities.
Relevant outcome indicators include the following:
(a) Cultural diversity is reflected and used as an educational resource at all levels of the education system;
(b) Educational programmes and textbooks discuss historical injustices against specific peoples and communities, in a manner that ensures fair representation of multiple narratives.
Data demonstrating assimilationist education, silencing or neglecting cultural heritage or narratives that differ from those of the State35 and insistence on imposing a national identity could also inform indicators.
- See communication SRB 4/2024 and response of 27 January 2025; and communications SRB 6/2025 and SRB 1/2026. ↩
F. Artistic, academic and scientific freedoms
Artistic, academic and scientific freedoms are at the core of cultural rights. The right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity is the right for all persons to freely experience and contribute to artistic expressions and creativity, through individual or collective practice, to have access to and enjoy the arts and to disseminate their expressions and creations.36 Academic and scientific freedom are two overlapping rights that protect academics and scientific researchers and those involved in related endeavours, who play a crucial role in ensuring access to and participation in science, in their activities to acquire, develop, transmit, apply and engage with a diversity of knowledge and ideas through research, teaching, learning and discourse.37 States must ensure these rights not only for artists, academics and scientists, but for everyone.
Any restrictions of artistic, academic and scientific freedoms must be in accordance with the conditions established in article 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which provides that “the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society”. Limitations must be necessary and proportionate and established by legal rules that are transparent and consistently applied in a non-discriminatory way.38 Since these freedoms are intrinsically linked to the right to freedom of expression, any limitation must also respect the standards established in article 19 (3) of the Covenant.39 Arbitrary processes for and undue scrutiny of critical, hybrid or contemporary cultural expressions or for exploratory and innovative scientific topics can violate artistic, academic and scientific freedoms, just as neglecting the expressions of lesser-known aesthetics, ideas, methodologies and world views may limit the right to access the creativity of others. Below are indicators that such freedoms are realized.
Relevant structural indicators include:
(a) Existence of legislation and policies requiring respect for and promoting freedom of artistic expression and creativity, as well as academic and scientific freedoms, and recognizing possible restrictions that are in line with international standards only;
(b) Existence of legal protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which a person is the author, combined with a robust and flexible system of copyright and patent exceptions and limitations to honour cultural rights obligations;
(c) Existence of measures ensuring the right of Indigenous Peoples to maintain, control, protect and develop intellectual property over their heritage, traditional knowledge and cultural expressions, in particular to protect against their mass production and commodification by non-Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent;
(d) Existence of legislation for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in cultural content management, requiring opt-in or opt-out clauses for all artificial intelligence text and data mining activities of intellectual production (artistic, academic and scientific) and for general control of artificial intelligence and its impact on creativity. Positive examples include the directive that France introduced on enforcing the rights of authors in the digital environment and the government office on artificial intelligence created by Australia in order to bring about a structural shift from voluntary guidelines to a mandatory regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, which should enforce rules ensuring that Australian artists, musicians, writers and journalists retain complete ownership and receive fair compensation if their content is used. Big data centres should not be allowed to interfere in such positive policies;
(e) National policies aimed at protecting and promoting the creation and existence of art in public spaces;
(f) Evidence that public grant-distributing arts and scientific bodies are truly varied in their composition and inclusive of different approaches to art and different methodologies in science, and evidence that the funding criteria used are also varied and inclusive of different approaches to art and science and of sections of the population;
(g) Prohibition of political and legal interference in public and private research activities undertaken in compliance with ethical and human rights standards;
(h) Establishment of a government archival body for the preservation of scientific and other forms of knowledge and a breakdown of the composition of the members of such body by ethnicity, background and gender;
(i) Legislation mandating public access to public research institutions, libraries and archives.
Relevant process indicators include:
(a) Number of communications relating to violations of freedom of artistic expression and creativity and of academic and scientific freedoms sent to and addressed by national courts, national human rights entities and relevant United Nations special rapporteurs, and responses of the relevant government;
(b) Existence of policies protecting the economic and social rights of artists and cultural professionals;
(c) Existence of policies, measures and operational programmes to support the mobility of artists, cultural professionals, students, athletes, academics and scientists;
(d) Adequate funding for mandatory arts, science and sport education programmes that are multilayered and multicultural in all primary and secondary schools;
(e) Policies protecting and supporting the continuity and transmission of long-established arts and crafts forms; and policies promoting the production and practice of unconventional or non-traditional art forms;
(f) Policies promoting the education and employment of underrepresented social groups in research positions.
Relevant outcome indicators include:
(a) Reported cases of censorship or interference by the State or other actors in freedom of artistic expression and academic and scientific freedoms, including with regard to the institutional autonomy of universities;
(b) Number of artists, scientists and academics in prison;
(c) Proportion of cultural workers in informal or precarious employment (e.g., short- and fixed-term work, casual and seasonal workers) and covered by social security benefits;
(d) Proportion of artists, cultural professionals, academics and scientists benefiting from programmes promoting mobility and cross-border creativity;
(e) Percentage of public funding earmarked for the creation and maintenance of arts and sports programmes for adolescents;
(f) Percentage of the population with regular access to the Internet and programmes that support the deployment of high-speed Internet in rural, remote, deprived and underserved areas;
(g) Number of research institutions per capita and breakdown according to their location in the country’s territory;
(h) Number of representatives of artists, including those living in rural areas or belonging to any marginalized section of the population, in the composition of national and local artistic boards and forums, including in positions of authority;
(i) Percentage of female scientists and scientists from marginalized communities, as well as a breakdown of their intersectional characteristics;
(j) Number of professionals employed as researchers per capita;
(k) Percentage of open access academic and scientific journals.
G. Rights relating to cultural heritage
The protection of the right of everyone to enjoy and access cultural heritage in general, and the specificities with respect to museums, has been covered to a degree by the indicators presented so far. Below are some indicators that are more specific to rights relating to cultural heritage.
Relevant structural indicators include:
(a) Percentage of public funds going towards the establishment and maintenance of museums;
(b) Percentage of public funds going towards museums or specific museum programmes or collections focusing on non-dominant sectors of society, such as youth, women, migrants, minority and Indigenous groups, people of African descent, persons with disabilities and people living in poverty;
(c) Legal protection of academic, scientific and editorial freedoms of museum curators and guarantees of their independence from political, religious or commercial interference;
(d) Number of museums having adopted codes of ethics;
(e) State recognition of historical injustices against specific peoples and communities and evidence of effective reparation or redress.
Relevant process indicators include:
(a) Review of public historical narratives displayed, in particular, in museums and public spaces and on monuments, memorials and topographic signs, to ensure respect for cultural diversity and multi-perspectivity, including, in particular, the narratives of non-dominant, vulnerable or marginalized sections of the population;
(b) Evidence of reflective discussions on decolonizing museums and galleries, including discussions on the return of objects when requested by their original custodians; and procedures to increase research and transparency about the origins of museum art and artefacts.
Relevant outcome indicators include:
(a) Percentage of executives of museums and galleries from non-dominant sections of the population, including women, youth and people of diverse origins;
(b) Percentage of museums with active programmes and initiatives for cultural diversity;
(c) Percentage of museums equipped with tools for persons with disabilities developed with the participation of persons with disabilities;
(d) Percentage of individuals who have visited at least one museum in the past 12 months, disaggregated by age, socioeconomic background, rural or urban status, disabilities and other factors;
(e) Percentage of exhibitions and initiatives in national museums that have been designed and executed by minorities and Indigenous Peoples;
(f) Number of community protocols between Indigenous Peoples and public or private entities that include specific benefits for Indigenous Peoples;
(g) Where traditional communities live, percentage of local authorities that recognize traditional medicines and health practices; and, in the case of Indigenous Peoples, recognition of their health institutions. This is an important indicator of the intersection between the right to health and cultural rights and is relevant to the collective right to have practices, including medical practices, supported by the State.
Negative indicators include State interference in the curatorial choices museums and galleries make, public museums that focus uncritically on serving the prevailing narratives and lack of participation of civil society, especially organizations that represent vulnerable and marginalized individuals and groups, in the functioning of museums and galleries.
H. Land rights
Structural indicators that are relevant to land rights include the following:
(a) Constitutional or legislative recognition of rights of local communities, peasants, minorities and Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and resources in accordance with international standards, including the collective right to traditional customary titles;
(b) Clear governmental procedures that are culturally adequate and respect participation rights for the identification, demarcation, mapping and registration of the lands or territories of local populations, peasants and Indigenous Peoples;
(c) Percentage of hectares in which traditional farming methods are used;
(d) Recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to the natural resources in their lands, including mineral and subsoil resources, and to share in the benefit from their use by the State;
(e) Percentage of local sustainable tourism development strategies that integrate a cultural aspect;
(f) Measures to mitigate the loss of traditional and local ecological knowledge when the environment sustaining that knowledge disappears;
(g) Number of businesses on Indigenous lands led by Indigenous Peoples using their processes, knowledge and methodologies.
Conversely, the refusal of a State to comply with international judicial or monitoring bodies regarding land rights of local communities, peasants, minorities and Indigenous Peoples constitutes a negative indicator.40
- See for example African Court of Human and People’s Rights, African Commission On Human And Peoples’ Rights v. Republic Of Kenya, Application No. 006/2012, Order of 4 December 2025 (for Kenya); communication TZA 3/2021 and response of 8 April 2022; and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Situation of the Maasai Indigenous Peoples in the United Republic of Tanzania, statement 1 (for Tanzania). ↩
I. Participation
Participation and access are essential and interconnected elements of all cultural rights.
The key elements of meaningful participation have gradually developed in international human rights law. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has made it clear that participation entails the right of everyone to “act freely, to choose his or her own identity, to identify or not with one or several communities or to change that choice, to take part in the political life of society, to engage in one’s own cultural practices and to express oneself in the language of one’s choice”, as well as to seek and develop cultural knowledge and expressions and share them with others and to take part in creative activity.41
- Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 21 (2009), para. 15 (a). ↩
By affirming that everyone has the right to contribute to cultural life by taking “part in the development of the community to which a person belongs, and in the definition, elaboration and implementation of policies and decisions that have an impact on the exercise of a person’s cultural rights”,42 the Committee connects cultural, political and social participation. This understanding requires cultural rights to be considered beyond the context of cultural policy matters.
- Ibid., para. 5 (c). ↩
Participation is multilayered, covering various aspects of decision-making (design, implementation, evaluation, benefits) and requiring individual and group engagement at all stages. Culturally adequate participation implies focusing on the ability of individuals and groups to engage in decision-making in a manner that respects and furthers the realization of cultural rights.
Current human rights standards of participation require different levels of participation for different sections of the population. Those standards require:
(a) Meaningful participation for everyone in all decision-making processes that have an impact on cultural life and cultural rights;
(b) Effective participation for members of minorities in cultural matters or matters that affect them directly, including special measures where needed;
(c) The active, free, effective, meaningful and informed participation of peasants;
(d) The existence of separate, specific and dedicated participatory structures and institutions for Indigenous Peoples and their free, prior and informed consent on matters that directly affect them.43 Such enhanced mechanisms are founded on the recognition of their right to self-determination, as set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the interpretation of the right to enjoy one’s culture under article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.44
In view of the foregoing, the indicators of the participatory element of cultural rights are set out below.
Relevant structural indicators include:
(a) Ratification of key international and regional instruments recognizing participation (e.g., the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), of the International Labour Organization);
(b) Explicit recognition in the constitution or national law that cultural rights include participation rights;
(c) Date of entry into force and coverage of special measures adopted to ensure the equal and meaningful participation of target groups (e.g., women in all their diversity, children, migrants, persons in rural places, persons with disabilities);
(d) Constitutions and domestic legislation that align with the definitions of effective participation (as set forth in the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities), enhanced participation of peasants (as set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas) and free, prior and informed consent (as set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) with respect to policies and measures that may affect persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, peasants and Indigenous Peoples and their cultural rights;
(e) Legislation recognizing and incorporating customary law institutions in public and private matters and in accordance with human rights principles, including Indigenous governance systems (e.g., councils of elders, kinship networks);
(f) Institutionalization of formal protocols and guidelines dictating how States must consult and engage in a culturally adequate manner with all relevant groups and Indigenous Peoples, based on their own protocols, institutions, traditions and worldviews.
Relevant process indicators include:
(a) Evidence of administrative guidance to all public bodies on how to ensure adequate participation rights for different sections of the population as described above, in accordance with international standards;
(b) Evidence of usage of a range of processes that facilitate and encourage participation.45 These may include:
(i) Online consultations, with appropriate access provisions and adequate dissemination to ensure relevant groups are aware of consultation processes;
(ii) Public meetings in locations that are easily accessible to vulnerable groups, with appropriate visibility and methodologies encouraging participation, and conducted in a culturally adequate and acceptable manner;
(iii) Community visits, which may incorporate public meetings, meetings with key stakeholders and representatives and discussion with community members;
(iv) Specific procedures to ensure participation without discrimination within specific communities, in particular the participation of women, youth, people with disabilities and people living in poverty;
(c) A breakdown of the level and stages of participation in projects in the previous year, including in:
(i) Strategic planning through identification of needs;
(ii) Selecting and testing appropriate methodologies;
(iii) Ensuring that collection of data or evidence is conducted by local people;
(iv) Hiring interviewers from particular communities to improve response rates;
(v) Evaluation, dissemination and review of the project;
(vi) Participation of civil society organizations, national human rights institutions and other relevant stakeholders in a manner that does not replace local populations or population directly affected;46
(d) Effective mechanisms (councils, secretariats or parliamentary committees) dedicated specifically to consultations between the State and representatives of various communities concerned;
(e) Adequate budget earmarked to support dialogue or consultations between the State and community representatives, particularly Indigenous representatives, through robust free, prior and informed consent processes;
(f) Government personnel with expertise or sufficient training in participation, including on the different levels mentioned above and their requirements;
(g) Evidence that consultations and free, prior and informed consent processes are initiated at the earliest stages of project or policy elaboration;
(h) Evidence of consultation material (e.g., plans, studies, impact studies, draft laws) being available and accessible to all groups affected, including in their languages and delivered through culturally appropriate means;
(i) Evidence of adherence to and respect for the decision-making processes of local communities, peasants, minorities and Indigenous groups in the context of consultation and free, prior and informed consent processes, including ensuring that dialogue occurs in culturally appropriate spaces and in accordance with communities’ protocols;
(j) Consultation and free, prior and informed consent processes that respect the decision-making roles of local, minority, peasant and Indigenous groups and individuals, including women, youth and elders, as defined by their own customs and in accordance with human rights standards.
Relevant outcome indicators include:
(a) Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, disaggregated by sex and gender, age, disability and population group, as well as colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status;
(b) Number of representatives of non-dominant, vulnerable and marginalized communities in the composition of national bodies in charge of art and heritage, and processes of meaningful and enhanced participation in decision-making related to art and heritage;
(c) Index measuring integration and intergenerational transmission of local, Indigenous and traditional knowledge in cultural heritage plans;
(d) Number of free, prior and informed consent processes implemented in development projects that may affect Indigenous Peoples;
(e) Percentage of development projects that have been altered or paused at the request of representatives of local communities, minorities and peasants, or following a veto by an Indigenous group;
(f) Consideration and inclusion of alternative forms of economic organization and methodologies in development proposals;
(g) Number of human rights impact assessments inclusive of cultural rights conducted before carrying out development projects;
(h) Percentage of seats held by marginalized groups across legislative and administrative decision-making bodies, boards and committees;
(i) Percentage of co-governed, local and Indigenous-led projects; and percentage of locally and Indigenous-owned projects;
(j) Evidence that traditional knowledge or Indigenous worldviews substantively altered the final policy or project.
V. Conclusions and recommendations
Cultural rights indicators are important tools for the monitoring and implementation of these rights, and they are useful both to States and civil society. Although there is still no agreed upon set of cultural rights indicators, the present report and the submissions received demonstrate that multiple insights and data already exist and that there are various avenues to develop and improve these indicators.
More work needs to be done to build a bottom-up approach allowing States, academia and civil society, with the cooperation of national institutes of statistics, to elaborate protocols to collect adequate quantitative and qualitative data to assess national implementation of cultural rights on a regular basis.
Taking inspiration from the above, States should:
(a) Adapt the indicators presented here to their own realities to assess the implementation of cultural rights within their jurisdictions, while ensuring the minimum core obligations with regard to cultural rights;
(b) Instruct their national institutes of statistics to work on identifying and collecting the necessary data to inform the chosen set of indicators on a regular basis;
(c) Encourage local governments to collect and inform the indicators at their level;
(d) Use the data collected through the indicators to strengthen their national reporting on cultural rights to relevant international and regional monitoring bodies.
Academic and scientific institutions, national human rights institutions and civil society, in their fields of activity, should:
(a) Use the proposed list of indicators to collect information relevant to their competencies;
(b) Share their observations and the results of their monitoring with public authorities to contribute to strengthening the national monitoring of the implementation of cultural rights.