A wealth of literature argues that domestic institutions can sometimes restrain government repression. In this article, we highlight an institution tasked specifically with protecting and promoting human rights: the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI). Although common international standards exist, NHRIs exhibit substantial variation in their organization, the rights that they protect, the activities they permit, and the manner in which they appoint their members. Scholarship to date has conceptualized and measured NHRIs dichotomously; an NHRI either exists or it does not. We present data that highlights NHRI heterogeneity collected via content analysis of NHRI annual reports, NHRI websites, national constitutions, government legislation, and other sources. Using these data, we show NHRIs that can publish their findings and NHRIs that can punish offenders are each associated with less state torture. These data will allow future researchers to better explore important questions regarding NHRI origins, design, processes, and effectiveness.

大量文献认为，国内机构有时可以限制政府的镇压。在本文中，我们重点介绍了专门负责保护和促进人权的机构：国家人权机构（NHRI）。尽管存在共同的国际标准，但国家人权机构在组织，受保护的权利，允许的活动以及任命成员的方式方面表现出很大的差异。迄今为止，奖学金已一分为二地概念化和衡量了国家人权机构；NHRI存在或不存在。我们提供的数据重点介绍了通过对NHRI年度报告，NHRI网站，国家宪法，政府法规和其他来源进行内容分析而收集到的NHRI异质性。使用这些数据，我们显示了可以发布其调查结果的国家人权机构和可以惩治犯罪者的国家人权机构各自都遭受了较少的国家酷刑。这些数据将使未来的研究人员能够更好地探索有关NHRI的起源，设计，过程和有效性的重要问题。