The purpose of the human rights monitoring or documentation process is to reinforce the State's responsibility to protect women's rights. Reports are used to seek accountability of the government structures to protect women from violence and also to show the clear need for a remedy. At the same time, the documentation exposes and records information about human rights abuses and makes the information public. In conducting human rights documentation, the standards against which the State should be compared are the international human rights obligations that the government has undertaken in ratifying treaties. The steps below are a synthesis of guidelines contained in Women's Human Rights Step by Step, by Women Law & Development International and Human Rights Watch Women's Rights Project (1997) as well as observations of NGO representatives who have conducted human rights documentation.

In undertaking investigation, the first step is to determine the obligations the government has undertaken through international treaties as well as national law, such as the Constitution or any human rights legislation. Advocates may find it useful to review the major treaties of the United Nations system and the European human rights system. Information about whether a specific country of the CEE and FSU region has ratified a treaty can be accessed on the country pages of this site.

A next important step is to identify the violation to be investigated and to be sure that the topic is clearly defined. For example, a human rights report could have as narrow a focus as "sexual harassment in the textile industry in Moldova" or as broad as "violence against women in the FSU." Before beginning the fact-finding process, therefore, it is useful to define the limits of the research. UN definitions of specific types of violence against women are often helpful in narrowing the topic of study. Likewise, the research could be limited to a particular country, or within that country, to a particular institution, such as places of detention or schools.

Most fact-finding or investigation relies primarily on the gathering of evidence through interviews and supplementing this with secondary data. Some of the secondary information can be compiled in advance and are useful as background material to train the research team. For example, annual reports of the United Nations Development Fund provide some insights into the general situation for women in a particular country. Past State reports submitted to UN committees, as well as the committee findings, can help to identify issues of concern. Other human rights NGOs, both locally and internationally, may have either drafted reports or shorter materials, such as press releases, on urgent matters related to women's rights. Newspaper articles, academic papers and social science surveys can also be gathered in advance of the main investigation process. It may only be possible to obtain some forms of secondary information, such as court documents, medical records or police files, through direct contact with individuals working within the system and, in the case of a non-local NGO, in the country of study. Be aware, however, that due to confidentiality issues, some types of records may not be available. In such cases, however, there may still be creative ways to obtain the information, for example, by asking an authority to summarize a procedure, rather than give specific names or examples.

Before conducting interviews, advocates should first identify the key actors who are sources of information on violence against women. Because the focus of human rights investigation is to identify breakdowns in the government structure, the legal system is usually the focus of interviews. Government representatives should be considered broadly- from local police officers, to lawyers, prosecutors, the judiciary and government ministers. In many civil law countries, victims of violence are required to obtain a medical certificate from a forensic expert before bringing a case to court. The forensic medical system is an important structure to consider in investigating the legal system response to violence against women. Key actors outside of the legal system should also be interviewed in the fact-finding process. Such individuals can include medical professionals (medical and psychological), trade union leaders, NGO representatives, social workers, academics and media representatives. Depending on the specific conditions in the country, researchers should allow interviewees to remain anonymous, and not be named in a human rights report, if they wish. It is useful to begin an interview by explaining the purpose an allowing the interviewee to state whether he/she prefers to remain anonymous.

Advocates should also consider carefully how to approach victims of violence. Many NGOs speak directly with victims of human rights abuses, usually protecting their identities if they are cited in a report. There are specific ethical considerations that must be considered when conducting research with victims. Other NGOs prefer not to approach victims directly for information out of concern that victims be allowed complete control over the process and not be harmed in any way. Stories from victims can often be obtained in other ways, for example, through first-person newspaper accounts or be reading public court records.

Another important step is to create a research methodology for the collection of data. A methodology for undertaking human rights research should both describe the types of information to be gathered and also reflect the manner in which the data will be collected. The handbook Women's Human Rights Step by Step, identifies three important principles for conducting research: impartiality, specificity and accuracy. In ensuring impartiality, researchers should ensure that the investigation is not one-sided and that all relevant information is included. Researchers should also pay close attention to the findings and make sure that they are both specific and accurate. A human rights report that is based on overly broad information or which mischaracterizes a situation will undermine the credibility of the organization that has undertaken documentation.