{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019417475728155338, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024271844660194173, 'mean_word_length': 5.650537634408602, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Implementation of Methods of Work

This chapter explores the implementation of methods of work developed by mandate holders of Special Procedures, focusing on those that stand out for their interference with the sovereignty of states, their adaptability to multiple scenarios, and their accessibility. This includes: (1) the handling of communications; (2) visits on the ground; and (3) development of normative standards in the field of human rights. Perhaps paradoxically, Special Procedures have drawn on the vagueness of mandates determined by political negotiations as a basis to develop quasi-judicial methods of work and contribute to the codification of international human rights law. However, the differences in implementing methods of work and interpreting mandates unravels the challenges inherent to combining political and legal approaches to human rights issues. Some of those challenges can be overcome with better communication strategies, standardization of generic information, and better induction programs, which should be included in the process of selection of new mandate holders. Others are inevitable to persevere the features that have permitted the unique methods of work and influence of Special Procedures.