The Tensions that Exist in the Creation of National Mechanisms for (Implementation) Reporting and Follow-Up (NMRF/ NMIRF) to Better Comply with State Reporting to United Nations Treaty Bodies

Abstract

This Article studies the rise of new domestic human rights institutions called National
Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-Up (NMRFs) or National Mechanisms for Implementation,
Reporting and Follow-Up (NMIRFs). More than fifty of these institutions have been created over the
last few years because they are seen to be critical to a state meeting its reporting obligations to
various international, regional, and sometimes even sub-regional oversight bodies. This is especially
true in regard to the nine United Nations treaty bodies that states are obliged to report to. This article
evaluates what these national mechanisms are, why they have become so important, and how they
can help to successfully promote human rights in the countries in which they work.
This Article touches on the inherent tensions in the creation of these bodies domestically.
While states want to create these institutions in ways that assist their processes, they are concerned
that without control of them that the potential outcome of the state reporting process might see the
country as being viewed negatively. Thus, states want to control the narrative about human rights in
their country, but at the same time need to comply with state reporting processes and the desire of
international organizations to increase human rights promotion and protection in countries around
the world.