Human rights awareness has grown in large part because nongovernmental organizations amplify information about violations. Advocacy techniques and the availability of information have changed over time, and reliance on NGO sources shapes scholarly debates about information availability and human rights measurement. This project asks: how did appeals on behalf of individuals change as human rights concepts and legal standards expanded?

📚 What documents were analyzed

• Amnesty International’s Urgent Action bulletins for Latin America, covering 1975–2007.
• Event-based, activist-generated records that report individual cases and advocacy appeals.

📊 How the material was used

• Event features of the bulletins were exploited to track changes in advocacy content and framing over time.
• The collection was treated as a source of temporal, case-level indicators useful for debates about information availability and how human rights are measured.

🔍 Illustrative case study: torture appeals

• Focused examination of how legal standards and legal language appear in appeals addressing allegations of torture.
• Traces changes in the use of legal concepts within Urgent Actions as a window on evolving advocacy strategies and normative standards.

• Key contributions:

• Demonstrates the analytical value of activist-generated, event-based data for studying the evolution of human rights advocacy.
• Links shifts in advocacy language to broader changes in human rights concepts and legal standards without assuming stable information availability.
• Provides a methodological template for using NGO documents to inform measurement debates in human rights research.

⚠️ Why it matters

• The study clarifies how reliance on NGO-produced information affects scholarly inferences about human rights over time and offers a concrete example—torture appeals—showing how legal framing in advocacy has shifted as norms evolved.