Rule of Law and Human
Rights Global Programme
Impact
Thematic focus
 = Global Focal Point

Africa

Arab states

Asia-Pacific

Europe and Central Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Justice Futures CoLab

The Justice Futures CoLab was launched to promote new ways of thinking and approaching complex justice and rule of law challenges. The CoLab illustrates UNDP’s commitment and strategy to do more and do better (and differently). A more strategic, people-centred and rights-based approach is taken to ensure meaningful access to justice for all, starting with those most at risk of being left behind.

Human rights systems

UNDP continues to support strengthening national human rights systems (NHRIs). Independent, effective and pluralistic NHRIs are cornerstones of national systems to promote and protect human rights.

Anti-racism

In 2021, after racial justice protests and movements emerged in the United States and other parts of the world, the United Nations and its various funds, programmes and other entities also took up a renewed commitment to fight against racism and racial discrimination both within the organization and also through their approaches.

Business and human rights

UNDP has been supporting the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) since 2016. This support has involved programming across the three pillars of the protect, respect and remedy framework, engaging with states, business actors and civil society.

Community security

The global context has become ever more challenging with ongoing war, coups d‘état, attempted coups d‘état, turmoil and instability in several countries. In the midst of such widespread political tension and fragility, UNDP has stayed the course towards people-centred security by promoting solutions that strengthen state institutions in line with people’s needs.

Global Focal Point for the Rule of Law

The UN Global Focal Point for the Rule of Law (GFP) is a joint arrangement for delivery of the rule of law in fragile settings. Co-chaired by UNDP and the UN Department of Peace Operations (DPO), GFP reinforces One-UN approach at the global and national levels to address violent conflicts, protect human rights and restore justice and security for people affected by crisis and conflict.

Results framework

Results framework

This Results Framework tracks the progress and achievements of the Global Programme’s objectives, aggregating results across the contexts receiving the Global Programme support. The tables below reflect the results the Global Programme has achieved in the thematic areas of rule of law, human rights, justice, and security (Outcome 1 and associated Outputs 1 - 4), in strengthening monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) and contributing to policy discourse (Outcome 2 and associated Outputs 5 and 6). Operational effectiveness indicators reflect the Global Programme’s results in promoting an enabling operational environment.

Output 1

Expected
Outputs		 Output Indicatorsi Data
Source		 Baseline Results Note
Value Year Year1
(2022)
Output 1
Legal frameworks and underlying norms and practice are more inclusive and nondiscriminatory and people have greater agency and opportunities to know and claim their rights, solve disputes and seek redress for rights violations.		 1.1 Number of contexts where GP support strengthened legal and/ or policy strategies or frameworks to expand civic space. GP
reporting		 4 2022 4

Comoros, Eswatini, Honduras and Kazakhstan
1.2 Proportion of contexts where GP-supported human rights institutions, systems or stakeholders strengthened capacities to support the fulfilment of nationally and internationally ratified human rights obligations Corporate
data & GP
reporting		 Green: 40%
Amber: 60%		 2022 Green: 40%
Amber: 60%

Out of 38 contexts, 15 have IRRF data: Green: Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Maldives, Mozambique and Uzbekistan. Amber: Burkina Faso, Eswatini, Jordan, Lebanon, Nepal, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uruguay. IRRF data not available: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burundi, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Haiti, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
1.3 Proportion of contexts in which GP support provided to constitution making processes by introducing or supporting at least one mechanism for civic engagement. Corporate
data & GP
reporting		 Green: 25%
Amber: 75%		 2022 Green: 25%
Amber: 75%

Out of 6 contexts, 4 have IRRF data:
Green: Armenia.
Amber: Chile, Somalia and South Sudan.
IRRF data not available: Belarus and Belize.
1.4 Number of contexts with GP-funded access to justice programmes or projects introduced or supported. GP
reporting		 24 2020 17

Argentina, Belize, Burundi, Chad, Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Liberia, Libya, Myanmar, Niger,Somalia and Tunisia.
The target for 2022 was 28; the target was partially achieved.

1.5 Number of contexts where GP support has contributed to the establishment and/or strengthening of justice & security mechanisms, processes and frameworks to prevent, respond to, and address sexual and gender based violence/conflictrelated sexual violence GP
reporting		 17 2022 17

Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Mexico, Moldova, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Sudan.

Output 2

Expected
Outputs		 Output Indicatorsi Data
Source		 Baseline Results Note
Value Year Year1
(2022)
Output 2
Mechanisms to hold duty bearers and power holders to account in order to ensure the rule of law and promotion and protection of human rights are in place and actively used.		 2.1 Number of contexts in which GP support has contributed to: (a) implementation of UPR recommendations. (b) closer integration between human rights and SDG systems. GP
reporting		 (a) 5
(b) 7		 (a) 2022
(b) 2020		 (a) 5
(b) 13

(a) Botswana, Eswatini, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Uruguay.
(b) Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tunisia, Uruguay and Uzbekistan.
The target for (a) was achieved and the target for (b) was exceeded.
2.2 Proportion of contexts where GP-supported private sector institutions, systems, or stakeholders (including publicly owned companies) have strengthened capacities to support fulfilment of nationally and internationally ratified human rights obligations. Corporate
data & GP
reporting		 Green: 14%
Amber: 86%		 2022 Green: 14%
Amber: 86%

Out of 25 contexts, 7 have IRRF data:
Green: Ghana.
Amber: Maldives, Mozambique, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam.
IRRF data not available: Azerbaijan, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Peru, Tunisia, Türkiye and Ukraine
2.3 Number of contexts where GP support has improved capacities of justice and security institutions for oversight and accountability. GP
reporting		 11 2022 11

Belarus, Burundi, Central African Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Guinea, Libya, Nigeria, Sudan and also Kosovo*.
2.4 Number of contexts with GP-introduced or strengthened peoplecentred and gendersensitive, transitional justice solutions. GP
reporting		 24 2020 17

Argentina, Belize, Burundi, Chad, Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Liberia, Libya, Myanmar, Niger,Somalia and Tunisia.
The target for 2022 was 28; the target was partially achieved.

Output 3

Expected
Outputs		 Output Indicatorsi Data
Source		 Baseline Results Note
Value Year Year1
(2022)
Output 3
Justice and security systems are serviceoriented and better able to protect human rights and respond to people’s justice and security needs through high-quality performance.		 3.1 Proportion of contexts where GP-support to rule of law and justice institutions, systems, or stakeholders has strengthened capacities to support fulfilment of nationally and internationally ratified human rights obligations. Corporate
data & GP
reporting		 Green: 33%
Amber: 67%		 2022 Green: 33%
Amber: 67%

Out of 22 contexts, 6 have IRRF data:
Green: Ethiopia and Moldova.
Amber: Eswatini, Guyana, Kazakhstan and Türkiye.
IRRF data not available: Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Georgia, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan and Ukraine.
3.2 Number of new or strengthened peoplecentred justice policies, services or innovative digital solutions developed with GP support. GP
reporting		 45 2022 45

Results include policies, services and innovative digital solutions developed at global and regional levels (Arab States, Europe and Central Asia) and for national contexts (Albania, Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Liberia, Mexico, Moldova, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, Yemen and also Kosovo).
3.3 Number of new or strengthened peoplecentred security policies, services or innovative digital solutions developed with GP support. GP
reporting		 13 2022 13

Results include policies, services and innovative digital solutions developed at global and regional (Africa, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean) levels, and for national contexts (Cameroon, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nigeria and Venezuela).
3.4 Number of justice and security institutions with enhanced capacity to provide people-centred services, in line with human rights/gender/LNOB principles, through GPsupported interventions. GP
reporting		 94 2022 94

Contexts supported include Azerbaijan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and also Kosovo.
Including 42 institutions at national level and 52 at subnational level.
3.5 Number of justice and security personnel with enhanced capacity to provide people-centred services, in line with human rights/gender/LNOB principles, through GPsupported interventions GP
reporting		 3025 2022 3025

Contexts supported include Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Liberia and Mali.

Output 4

Expected
Outputs		 Output Indicatorsi Data
Source		 Baseline Results Note
Value Year Year1
(2022)
Output 4
Community security, safety and resilience strengthened through people-centred strategies, processes and mechanisms.		 4.1 Number of contexts in which GP-supported local government, justice and security providers respond in a more holistic & peoplecentred way to community safety and security needs and grievances. GP reporting 4 2022 4

Côte d'Ivoire, Eswatini, Lesotho and Niger.
4.2 Number of contexts where GP support introduced or strengthened gender-sensitive and people-centred evidencebased security strategies for reducing armed violence and/or controlling small arms at the community level. GP
reporting		 3 2022 3

Cameroon, Jamaica and South Sudan.
4.3 Number of GP-funded integrated programmes/ projects in stabilization and/or triple nexus contexts that support people centred community security and social cohesion and:
a) financial volume of support;
b) number of joint programmes/projects.		 GP
reporting		 12
(GP3-funded:6; GP4-funded:6)
a) US$ 3,353,534 (GP3: 1,603,534; GP4: 1,750,000)
b) 5		 2022 (GP3-funded:6; GP4-funded:6)
a) US$ 3,353,534 (GP3: 1,603,534; GP4: 1,750,000)
b) 5

Results reflect projects that were operational in 2022, including those funded by GP3 and GP4.
GP3 funded: Haiti (200,000), Niger (199,800), Myanmar (300,000), Pakistan (300,000), Somalia (103,734) and South Sudan (SALIENT, 500,000).
GP4 funded: Cameroon (SALIENT, 500,000), Democratic Republic of the Congo (200,000), Lebanon (300,000), Moldova (250,000), Mozambique (200,000) and Myanmar (300,000).
Joint programmes/projects: Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Somalia and South Sudan

Output 5

Expected
Outputs		 Output Indicatorsi Data
Source		 Baseline Results Note
Value Year Year1
(2022)
Output 5
Strengthened Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) systems support project/ programme design and implementation.		 5.1 Number of new methods (including tools, frameworks and processes) for GP-related monitoring, evaluation and learning adopted at: i. global; ii. Regional; iii. Country level. GP reporting 0 2021 i. 0
ii.2
iii. 15

i. N.A.
ii. Results include methods developed in Africa and in Europe and Central Asia.
iii. Results include methods developed in Argentina, Botswana, Ecuador, Guatemala, Jordan, Mexico, Moldova, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.
5.2 Number of key UNDP global knowledge and learning products produced and disseminated by GP; in (a) English; and/or (b) other languages. GP
reporting		 (a) 5
(b) 0		 2020 (a) 14
(b) 1

Results include 5 joint publications with other UN agencies.
Global knowledge products: Women’s Meaningful Participation in Transitional Justice: Advancing Gender Equality and Building Sustainable Peace; Embracing the Transformative Potential of Justice for Peace and Development; E-Justice: Digital Transformation to Close the Justice Gap; E-justice toolkit; Global Mapping of E-Justice Projects in the Development Context; Environmental Justice: Securing our right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; Promoting Environmental Justice through UNDP Programming: Guidance note; Heightened Human Rights Due Diligence for Business in Conflict-Affected Contexts: A Guide; Beyond the pandemic – The Justice Emergency
Joint: UN Good Practices: How The Universal Periodic Review Process Supports Sustainable Development; Human Rights and Voluntary National Reviews: Operational Common Approach Guidance Note; A People-Centred Approach to Security–Seeking conceptual clarity to guide UN policy development; Advancing Access to Justice and Legal Aid in Situations of Forced Displacement; Information Note: What is the Right to a Healthy Environment.
Other languages: Heightened Human Rights Due Diligence for Business in Conflict-Affected Contexts: A Guide; Beyond the pandemic: The Justice Emergency , available in English, French, Japanese, Spanish, Russian and Ukrainian.
The targets for 2022 were (a) 3 and (b) 1. The target for (a) was exceeded, and the target for (b) was achieved.

5.3 Number of GP-led or GP-supported knowledge and learning-focused mechanisms (e.g. workshops, trainings, COPs, theory of change reflection sessions etc.) at i. global; ii. regional; iii. country level. GP
reporting		 i. 33
ii. 15
iii. 5		 2022 i. 33
ii. 15
iii. 5

Results reflect knowledge and learning-focused mechanisms at global and regional level (all regions have supported knowledge and learning-focused mechanisms) and at country level (Azerbaijan, Botswana, Liberia, Rwanda and Somalia).

Output 6

Expected
Outputs		 Output Indicatorsi Data
Source		 Baseline Results Note
Value Year Year1
(2022)
Output 6
Sustained high-quality, evidenceinformed analytics and learning contribute to shaping global and regional level policy discourse on rule of law, justice, security and human rights.		 6.1 Number of key UN global learning and/ or policy documents published referencing GPspecific evidence-based findings/knowledge/results. GP
reporting		 11 2022 11

Contributions to key UN global learning/policy documents in the areas of rule of law, gender justice, transitional justice and human rights.
6.2 Stakeholders’ general perception of GP analytics and policy work in terms of (a) quantity /frequency; (b) quality of outputs; (c) level of impact on global rule of law, justice, security and human rights policy landscape. GP
reporting		 (a) Appropriate: 71% (b) Excellent: 29%; Good: 71% (c) High level: 57%; Average level: 43% 2022 (a) Appropriate: 71%; (b) Excellent: 29%; Good: 71% (c) High level: 57%; Average level: 43%

According to the stakeholder survey results:
(a) 71% of respondents agree that the quantity/ frequency is at an appropriate level.
(b) 29% of the respondents agree that the quality of the outputs is excellent, while the remaining 71% agree that the quality is good.
(c) 57% of the respondents found the GP knowledge and policy work having a high impact on global policy landscape (the rest – 43% - rated the level of impact as average).
6.3 Number of rule of law, justice, security and human rights related policy discussions/events (UN and non-UN):
(a) that are convened by GP;
(b) to which GP is invited to contribute (e.g. staff representation or expertise, data);
(c) to which the GP contributes; at the i. global; ii. regional; iii. country level.		 GP
reporting		 (a) 28 (b) 41 (c) i: 27; ii: 10; iii: 4 2022 (a) 28 (b) 41 (c) i: 27; ii: 10; iii: 4

Results reflect rule of law, justice, security and human rights related policy discussions/events at global and regional level and at country level, which are convened by GP (a) or with GP contribution (b, c). (b) = total of (c) i, ii, iii.
6.4 Number of downloads of key GP-produced policy documents and knowledge products. GP reporting; Google Analytics 2174 2022 2174

Total downloads: 2,174;
Total page views: 13,457 NB: Google Analytics does not provide an exact number of downloads, as it applies some thresholds and does not count the number of downloads from the servers where the assets are cached (CDN - Content Delivery Network).

Operational Effectiveness

Expected
Outputs		 Output Indicators Data
Source		 Baseline Results Note
Value Year Year1
(2022)
OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORSii
Operational Effectiveness OE1 Number of countrylevel GP-funded projects/ programmes that integrate a human rights-based approach. GP
reporting		 34 2020 64 funded by GP4, plus 37 funded by GP3 but operational in 2022

GP4 = 27: Algeria, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Central African Republic x2, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Moldova, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, and Ukraine.
BHR = 17: Ghana, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine and Viet Nam.
SALIENT = 3: Cameron, Jamaica and South Sudan (South Sudan is 2021 funding only, but the project is operational in 2022).
Gender Justice Platform = 18: Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, the State of Palestine, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Zimbabwe and also Kosovo. (GJP funded/via UN Women).
GP3 (funds disbursed in 2021, project operational in 2022) = 27: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eswatini, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Jordan, Liberia, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Paraguay, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, Venezuela and Yemen.
HRM (funds disbursed in 2021, project operational in 2022) = 9: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Jordan, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Uruguay and the Central Asia region.
The target for 2022 was 34; the target was exceeded

OE2 Number of contexts where the respective GP portfolio of projects/ programmes meets the set 15% budget quota for gender investments. GP
reporting		 18 2022 18 (Gender Justice Platform)

All GP-funded projects are GEN2, making a significant contribution to gender equality and/or the empowerment of women and girls.
Gender Justice Platform is a GEN 3 project.

OE3 Total number and proportion of full-time female staff among ROLSHR team contract holders (i. international professional staff; ii. general service staff; iii. other contract categories (incl. interns, seconded staff, UNVs, consultants etc.). GP
reporting		 i.: 32, female 69% ii. 3, female 67% iii.: 48, female 54% 2022 i.: 32, female 69% ii. 3, female 67% iii.: 48, female 54%

i. International professional staff: 32/22 female: P – 21/14 female; IPSA – 11/8 female; plus 8 position vacant (as of December 2022).
ii. G-staff: 3/2 female (as of December 2022).
iii. Other (interns, UNVs, secondees): 48/26 female: interns- 2/2 female; seconded staff – 1/1 female; UNV – 1/0 female; consultants – 44/23 female.

OE4 Global Focal Point for the Rule of Law (GFP) partnerships:
(a) Total number of GFPfunded joint programmes/ projects.
(b) Total budget amount of GFP-funded joint programmes.
(c) Number of contexts where GFP-supported joint rule of law assessments, strategies, programmes and/or frameworks developed (complementing a UN political strategy or reinforcing implementation of a UNSC mission mandate). 		GP reporting; Google Analytics a) 3 b) US$ 800,000 c) 5 2022 a) 3 (GP4 2022), plus 3 (funded by GP3) b) US$ 800,000 (GP4), plus 795,534 (GP3) c) 5

a) and b) Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and Libya.
Plus GP3 funds disbursed in 2021 and projects/ programmes operational in 2022: Haiti, Niger, Somalia and Yemen.
c) Haiti, Libya, Niger, Somalia and Sudan.

Programme Outcome 1

Outcome indicators
Programme Outcome 1: Inclusive, people-centred systems that provide quality justice and security services and uphold and protect human rights are trusted and accessible, especially in contexts affected by crisis, conflict or fragility.
Indicatorsiii Baseline Results 2022
1.1 Global Programme (GP) supported contexts’ average World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index score; and 1.1.1. Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) (for African countries, only). 0.49 (2022)
46.99 (2021)		 0.49
46.99 (2021, latest
data)
Source: World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2022; Ibrahim Index on African Governance, 2021 results and GP reporting 75 out of 104 GP supported context have Rule of Law Index 2022 score; 31 contexts of GP supported are in IIAG 2021. GP definitions: GP support and GP supported refer to the provision of tailored, context specific assistance provided through the Global Programme and may include, but is not limited to, pipeline or non-pipeline funding, technical and strategic expertise and advice provided by ROLSHR staff or consultants, or the mobilization of agile capacities. For further details see the Phase IV project document at Section 2.5, “Theory of Action: How the Global Programme Enables Change”.
1.2 Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, by sex and age. 5.7 (2019) 5.6 (2020)
Source: Corporate data, IRRF Development Outcome 3, Outcome Indicator 5. Note from IRRF: SDG 16.1.1
Data source: Based on “The Secretary-General’s Report on Sustainable Development Goals, Statistical Annex”. Baseline data is for year 2019. The latest data is for year 2020.
1.3 Number of strategic partnerships for advancing programming and policy objectives with: i. UN entities; ii. International Financial Institutions; iii. Private sector; iv. Civil society organizations; v. Multistakeholders or intergovernmental organizations; vi. Government agencies or public institutions; vii. Academia and think tanks. 52 (2021)
i. 19
ii. 1
iii. 1
iv. 11
v. 19 		73iv
i. 29
ii. 1
iii. 3
iv. 8
v. 23
vi. 5
vii. 4
Source: GP reporting
GP definitions: Strategic partnerships refers to any formal agreement for cooperation entered into by the Global Programme with another entity. This could include, for example, an MOU, a partnership agreement, or email exchange detailing the arrangements for partnering on a specific project or thematic area of work.
Multi-stakeholder partnership refers to a partnership that brings together a range of different actors such as civil society, governments, international bodies, media, and academic or research institutions.
Civil society organizations may include, but are not limited to, faith-based organizations, regional and international non-government organizations, academia, think tanks and research institutions, professional associations.
1.4 GP-supported contexts’ average NHRI accreditation status. Out of 38 contexts
(2022):
A: 16; B: 10;
Lapsed: 1; N.A: 11		 GP-supported contexts (as per output indicator 1.2): out of 38 contexts:
A: 16; B: 10;
Lapsed: 1; N.A: 11 Globally: A: 84; B: 33
Source: GANHRI, Chart of the Status of National Institutions Accredited by the Global Alliance of NHRIs, as of November 29, 2022
GP-supported contexts in 2022: as per Output Indicator 1.2 A: Burundi, Colombia, Ghana, Haiti, India, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Rwanda, Ukraine, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.
B: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Côte d’Ivoire, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Türkiye, and Uzbekistan.
Lapsed: Burkina Faso.
N.A.: Comoros, Dominican Republic, Eswatini, Djibouti, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Mozambique, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Yemen.
1.5 Number people supported, who have access to justice. 78,059,933 (2021) 84,986,917
Source: Corporate data, UNDP overall reporting; Baseline: UNDP IRRF 2018-2021, Indicator 2.2.3.2.A.2; 2022 Results: UNDP IRRF 2022-2025, 2.2.3a,b,c.

Programme Outcome 2

Programme Outcome 2: Regional and global level policy on rule of law, justice, security & human rights is evidence-based, affirms a development perspective and informs high-quality programming.
Indicatorsiii Baseline Results 2022
2.1 2.1 Average score of Programme Quality Index for GP-funded contexts GP3 (2019): highly satisfactory
SALIENT (2020): highly satisfactory		 GP4 (2022): Exemplary
Source:UNDP Quality Assurance Portal
Note: changed from “Average score of Programme Quality Index for GP-funded contexts”, UNDP Strategic Plan IRRF Organizational Enablers, Indicator 1.1.1.
2.2 2.2 GP-supported GPN/Express One Roster deployments: (a) Number of: i. UNDP staff; ii. Consultants, iii. UNVs; iv. Stand by Partner experts (all by gender); (b) Volume of deployments (in USD).
(c) Expert deployments conducted under the GFP framework, including deployments by DPO Standing Justice and Corrections and Standing Police Capacity (expenses are covered by DPO, thus amount not available in UNDP). 		(a)
i. 1 (IPSA, female)
ii. 22 (12 female, 10 male)
iii. 0
iv. 2 (1 female, 1 male)
(b) US$ 746,000
(c) 24 (including remote deployment during COVID-19) 		(a)
i. 3 (IPSA, 3 female)
ii. 23 (15 female, 8 male)
iii. 0
iv. 1
(b) US$ 864,509
(c) 12
Source: GP reporting, GFP reporting.
Disaggregation: Disaggregate by sex where applicable.
Additional explanation: This is a proxy indicator for the Global Programme’s agile capacities and responsiveness to requests for the rapid provision of high-quality technical and strategic expertise, particularly in contexts experiencing conflict, crisis and/or fragility. Deployments may be cross-cutting, supporting several outputs within the results framework. Deployments may include UNDP staff missions (both virtual and inperson) and detailed assignments, including to HQ for the purposes of supporting Phase IV delivery.
2.3 2.3 Number of GP-supported impact, country programme, thematic and outcome reviews, assessments and evaluations. 2 (2022) 2
Source: GP reporting
2.4 2.4 Number of people using digital technologies and services in ways that improves their lives, in GP-supported contexts. 2,575,766 in 19 contexts (2022) 19 contexts of 104 have IRRF data, totalling 2,575,766, including:
Female: 827,524 Male: 1,608,763
Sex-disaggregated data unavailable: 139,479
Source: Corporate data, see IRRF Enabler E.1, Indicator E1.3. and GP reporting
See UNDP IRRF methodological note for further details.
Disaggregation: Disaggregate by sex.

  1. The following indicators were modified to monitor the number of contexts based on GP reporting, instead of proportion of contexts: Indicator 1.1, 1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 4.1, 4.2; should the tracking of proportion become feasible in the coming years of GP4 implementation, the indicators may be modified again where appropriate. OE4 (c) is modified to track the number of contexts. Indicator 1.2, 1.3, 2.2 and 3.1 track the proportion of contexts based on the rating as reported in the UNDP Integrated Results and Resources Framework (IRRF). For these indicators, a traffic light system (green, amber, red) is applied. Green indicates that the rating of the context for the respective indicator in IRRF has improved; Amber indicates that the rating in IRRF has remained the same; Red indicates that the rating in IRRF has decreased. The following indicators were removed: Indicator 3.6 and 4.3; Indicator numbering adjusted upon removal of the indicators. The following indicators were moved from output level to outcome level: Indicator 1.4 and 6.5 (to merge with outcome indicator 1.3). The numbering of output indicators was adjusted. The following indicators were reported based on GP reporting, instead of corporate data: Indicator 5.1. For the following indicators, the baseline was changed to 2022 value comparing to the original result framework: Indicator 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 5.3, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4; baseline changed to 2020: Indicator 5.2. Targets for 2022 were not included, as most of the targets were either to be determined or baseline (in most cases 2022 results). For the few indicators (4) that had specific 2022 target, the targets are included in the ‘Note’ column. Targets for the following years will be set based on 2022 results.

  2. Indicator OE 2 and 4 were revised.

  3. The following indicators were modified to be based on GP reporting: Indicator 1.3, 2.1 2.2, 2.3. The following indicators were modified with additional subcategories to reflect the GP work scope: Indicator 1.3, 2.2. Indicator 1.5 is added to ‘Outcome Indicators’ and removed from ‘Output Indicators’. Baseline data was added for Outcome Indicators.

  4. i. UN entities: Cross Pillar Analysis for Prevention - UN Working Group at Latin America and Caribbean regional level on PBA and RC work (OHCHR, OCHA, UNDP) led by regional PBA. Executive Office of the Secretary-General (EOSG) Global Focal Point for the Rule of Law (GFP) Inter-agency Task Force on Policing Inter-Agency Working Group on Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration, and the Inter-agency Security Sector Reform Task Force (IAWG - DDR & IASSRTF) Issue-Based Coalition at Regional Level (LAC region) The Task Team on Law and Policy on Internal Displacement (TTLP), Global Protection Cluster United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPO) via Global Focal Point United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) United Nations Development Coordination Office (DCO) United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Regional Collaboration Centre for Asia-Pacific United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) United Nations Police (UNPOL) United Nations Team of Experts on the Rule of Law and Sexual Violence in Conflict (ToE) United Nations University (UN University’s Centre for Policy Research) UNDP - OHCHR - Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI): Tri-Partite Partnership to Support National Human Rights Institutions UNDP - UN Women: Gender Justice Partnership UNDP - UNHCR: Global Partnership on Rule of Law and Governance UNDP - UNODA partnership SALIENT, Saving Lives Entity, including UNODA Regional Centres

    ii. International Financial Institutions: World Bank

    iii. Private sector: Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) Private Sector Partnership for the Rule of Law United Nations Global Compact

    iv. Civil society organizations: Asia Pacific Network of Environment Defenders (APNED) Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) Civil Association for Equality and Justice (ACIJ) Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF) Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL) Institute of African Women in Law (IAWL) International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) Namati: Innovations in Legal Empowerment

    v. Multi-stakeholders or intergovernmental organizations: African Union (African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, African Court on Human And People’s Rights, African Union Commission) Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions in Africa (CCJA) Conference of Ministers of Justice of Ibero-American Countries (COMJIB) Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF) Global Alliance for Reporting on Peaceful, Just, and Inclusive Societies Ibero-American Association of Public Prosecutors (AIAMP) Ibero-American Network of Judicial Schools Insitituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. Interamerican institute on human rights. (IIDH) Inter-American Association of Public Defenders (AIDEF) Inter-American Institute of Human Rights (IIHR) International Development Law Organization (IDLO) International Foundation for Ibero-American Public Administration and Public Policy (FIIAPP) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) International Labour Organization (ILO) International Network for Open Justice (RIJA) International Security Sector Advisory Team (ISSAT) Latin American and the Caribbean Network for Democracy (REDLAD) Latin American and the Caribbean Women’s Security and Defense Network (AMASSURU) Open Society Justice Initiative and the World Justice Project on measuring access to civil justice Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Pathfinders Working Group on Customary and Informal Justice

    vi. Government agencies or public institutions: Danish Institute for Human Rights Folke Bernadotte Academy The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Norwegian Resource Bank for Democracy and Human Rights (NORDEM)

    vii. Academia and think tanks: Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Justice Studies Center of the Americas (CEJA) New York University’s Center for International Cooperation Overseas Development Institute