A/75/385 forms of discrimination are indirect, e.g. involving laws or policies that do not explicitly discriminate on the basis of a proscribed ground but produce a disparate impact that correlates with such a proscribed ground. For example, laws that prohibit the wearing of headscarves in public places may appear neutral but will prevent Muslim women who wear hijab from working in the public sector. The impact of headscarf bans on Muslim women as a group may reveal disparities in access to employment, education, healthcare and cultural life. Such targeted group-based disadvantage suggests that bias – either unconscious or conscious – underpins discriminatory policies, illuminating the root cause of inequality. 161 66. Process indicators should verify a State’s efforts to operationalize its human rights commitments by way of policies, procedures and practices. They examine the state’s exercise of its duties beyond law-making to include, for example, the accessibility and inclusivity of mechanisms for rights-holders to report violations of human rights, the provision of human rights training to state officials, or governmental support for relevant non-state actors who have roles in implementing human rights. Protecting freedom of religion or belief and eliminating discrimination in practice may also require special measures in programming and capacity building to address the specific concerns and needs of individuals and groups who exist at the margins, such as minority religious or belief communities. 67. Outcome indicators can a be used to measure gaps in the enjoyment of a right. They should examine progress in the enjoyment of human rights in practice, and on an equal basis for different population groups. In line with the human rights approach, outcome indicators should be based on international standards but be contextually specific and timely to respond to the current needs of different communities. Crucially, a human rights approach necessitates acute attention to individuals in vulnerable situations; outcome indicators should be disaggregated to compare population groups, and to understand the situations of specific groups to the extent feasible. 68. The purpose of gathering such data is to enable a comprehensive assessment of policy outcomes in order to further improve State responses and to reach those who have been left behind. Measuring aggregates, such as the average number of places of worship in a region, does not convey information about the ability of members of disparate religious and belief communities to exercise their freedom of worship and accede these places. Highly publicized cases of religious persecution “are only the proverbial tip of the iceberg” 162 whereas many lower-intensity forms of discrimination or State coercion still remain under the radar of national or international attention. By collecting data on, and analyzing disparities between, groups, disaggregated data can better identify those farthest behind who may be hidden by averages. 69. In order to make a more comprehensive assessment of the extent of human rights violations, data should be collected along additional axes of inequality, including gender and ethnicity, to understand how multiple identities can hinder the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.163 70. Furthermore, data is not always quantitative; the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that human rights outcomes cannot be fully captured in statistics. Qualitative reports from civil society and first-hand testimony from rights-holders are essential to understanding context, revealing through “storytelling” 164 the lived experiences of rights-holders and hidden dynamics of marginalization. 161 162 163 164 See HDR 2019 http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf at 53; CESCR GC 20 paras 10-12. Heiner Bielefeldt and Michael Wiener, Religious Freedom Under Scrutiny (University of Pennsylvania Press), 2020, pp. 129-130 and 240. Several international human rights monitoring mechanisms have encouraged the disaggregation of data, e.g. in Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Recommendation 9 of CEDAW on statistical data (1989), General Comment 34 of CERD on discrimination against people of African descent (2011). See the peer-to-peer learning exercises related to “storytelling” in the #Faith4Rights toolkit, available online at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/faith4rights-toolkit.pdf. 17