A shadow report is only as strong as its weakest claim. If one figure turns out to be wrong, Commissioners may doubt everything else. RFLD’s manual, Reporting on the Maputo Protocol: a manual for shadow reports, sets a clear rule to prevent this: “Every major claim in a shadow report should rest on at least two independent types of source.”
Where the rule comes from
The African Commission’s 2022 Guidelines on Shadow Reports ask for “reliable, and objective information.” They list examples such as court cases, official reports, research, surveys and up-to-date statistics. The International Service for Human Rights, in its 2025 road map for civil society engagement with the Commission, warns against relying only on press sources.
RFLD’s two-source rule builds on both. It is the manual’s own method guidance and goes a step beyond the Commission’s text. Its purpose is practical: a claim that two different kinds of evidence support is much harder to dismiss.
What counts as independent
The key word is “types.” Two newspaper articles on the same event are one type of source, and they may share the same origin. The manual suggests combinations such as:
- official statistics plus documented cases
- court records plus field interviews
- budget documents plus testimony from service providers
- national survey data plus findings from a focus group
Each pairing joins a broad picture with a close-up. Statistics show scale. Cases show what the numbers mean in a woman’s life. Together, they make a finding that a State delegation cannot easily brush aside.
The evidence matrix
To apply the rule, the manual offers an evidence matrix template. It is a table where each row is a claim the report wants to make. The columns record the State report paragraph being tested and the sources, sorted by type, that support or contradict it.
The matrix does two jobs. First, it shows at a glance which claims meet the two-source rule and which do not. Second, it helps a coalition share the work, since each member can see where its evidence fits. Claims that remain thin after the evidence phase are either strengthened or dropped. The manual is clear that a shorter report built on strong evidence is better than a longer one with weak spots.
Using the State’s own words and figures
One source type deserves special attention: the State’s own data. Official statistics, ministry reports, budget documents and court records are hard for a government to reject. Equality Now describes shadow reporting as a way to “hold states to their own word.”
The manual encourages authors to read the State report alongside the State’s other publications. A State may claim progress in its report to the Commission while its national statistics office publishes figures that tell a different story. Placing the two side by side is often the most persuasive move a shadow report can make.
Following the money
Article 26(2) of the Maputo Protocol commits States to provide “budgetary and other resources” for implementation. Budget documents are therefore a natural second source. If a State report describes a programme to end violence against women, the national budget will show whether money was allocated. Audit reports and spending reviews, where they exist, show whether it was spent.
Gathering primary evidence
Many women’s organisations hold primary evidence: case files, hotline records, community meetings, interviews and focus groups. This material is valuable because it often covers women the State report does not reach. The manual gives one example of a well-documented approach. A 2022 shadow report on Article 14 of the Protocol in Rwanda combined document review with focus groups and key-informant interviews involving 155 participants across nine districts.
Primary evidence comes with responsibilities. The manual’s Module 5 sets strict conditions, starting with informed consent and confidentiality, before any information is gathered from individuals. Identifying details must be removed before a case appears in a shadow report. The final checklist asks authors to confirm that this has been done and that consent was recorded.
Citing well
Every figure in a shadow report needs a source. The manual’s final checklist states it plainly: “Every figure has a source, and every major claim rests on two types of evidence.” Footnotes do not count towards the 15-page limit under the Commission’s Guidelines, so authors have room to cite properly. Detailed tables and case summaries can go into annexes, of which up to ten are allowed.
A habit worth building
The two-source rule takes discipline, and it can slow the drafting process. It also protects an organisation’s reputation for years. Commissioners and State delegations remember which organisations brought reliable evidence. A coalition that gets this right in one review will be listened to more closely in the next.
RFLD’s own research uses the same standard. Readers interested in how evidence was built in another recent RFLD publication can look at the report on online violence against women in West and Central Africa.
About the report
This article draws on RFLD’s report Reporting on the Maputo Protocol: a manual for shadow reports, published on 4 October 2026. Read the summary, download the English edition or the French edition.
