Skip to content

Research Context: Evidence-Based Governance for Vulnerable Populations

Core Principle: Decisions affecting marginalized populations' fundamental rights are being made RIGHT NOW with PERMANENT consequences. Without transparent tracking of outcomes, these decisions are based on assumptions rather than evidence. By the time we realize assumptions were wrong, it's often TOO LATE to reverse course.

This principle unifies two parallel GRIMdata research tracks: SGBV-UPR (documenting violence patterns to enable accountability) and LittleRainbowRights (documenting digital system deployments to enable evidence-based governance). Both prevent irreversible harm by replacing assumptions with evidence.

The Pattern: First Rights Erode During Volatility

From Published Research

"During periods of political and economic instability, some of the first rights to be infringed are specifically those which allow for women, LGBTQ+ members, and often specifically trans individuals, to assert their independence and retain self-autonomy and respect."

"Consequently, the erasure of gendered human dignity becomes a repeatedly expected, and therefore accepted, outcome."

— Vollmer & Vollmer (2022), Stellenbosch Law Review, 33(1), 8–41. DOI: 10.47348/SLR/2022/i1a1

This documented pattern reveals a governance crisis. Whether during armed conflict, political upheaval, economic collapse, or rapid technological change—the rights of marginalized populations (women, LGBTQ+ members, trans individuals, children) erode first and fastest.

The challenge: Without transparent documentation, these erosions are treated as inevitable rather than actionable.

The response: "Tolerating the deterioration of these rights is a course of action that should be altered and supported by human rights institutions."

The Documentation Crisis: When Evidence Matters Most, Systems Fail

Decisions Without Evidence

"Measuring the prevalence of SGBV is difficult, in general, due to typical factors affecting reporting, documenting, and maintaining data on incidences of occurrences. This is further exacerbated where instability exists." — Vollmer & Vollmer (2022), Section 4.3

Two Contexts, Same Governance Challenge

Context 1: Physical Violence During Armed Conflict

It is well documented that SGBV is used as a weapon of war. Yet during armed conflict, the systems for documenting these violations fail precisely when evidence is most critical. Without transparent tracking, perpetrators act with impunity. Survivors lack evidence for justice. Institutions make decisions about interventions based on assumptions rather than documented patterns.

Context 2: Digital Systems Affecting Vulnerable Populations

Digital technologies (AI, surveillance, biometric identification, identity verification systems) are being deployed rapidly with decisions about vulnerable populations' fundamental rights—the right to access digital infrastructure and the right to control your own data—being made RIGHT NOW by actors who may not be qualified to protect those rights:

Parents? May not understand digital safety themselves

  • Already posting children's photos publicly on social media
  • May not grasp permanence ("everywhere forever, easily hacked")
  • May not understand trade-offs between access and privacy

Governments? May weaponize systems against vulnerable populations

  • Countries criminalizing LGBTQ+ people could use biometric data for tracking
  • May lack ability to secure sensitive data properly
  • May prioritize surveillance over individual rights

Companies? May lack security, accountability, or incentive to protect vulnerable users

  • Data breaches expose biometric information permanently
  • Business models may conflict with user privacy
  • May not understand specific vulnerabilities of marginalized populations

Vulnerable populations themselves? May NEED digital infrastructure (AI for education, safety, health; digital access as fundamental right) but lack power to set governance terms.

The Shared Problem: Irreversible Decisions Based on Assumptions

In both contexts:

  • Vulnerable populations: Women, LGBTQ+ individuals, children, trans people
  • Decision-makers: Often the wrong people (those who may harm or fail to protect)
  • Consequences: Permanent and irreversible (can't un-collect biometric data, can't undo normalized surveillance, can't reverse data breaches)
  • Without tracking: Assumptions → decisions → by the time we know we were wrong, it's TOO LATE

Questions we can't answer without transparent tracking:

  1. Who should control vulnerable populations' data? Not parents who don't understand. Not governments who may use it to harm. Not companies who can't secure it. But WHO?
  2. What trade-offs exist? Does AI deployment help education at acceptable privacy cost? Do identity verification systems protect children or expose them to surveillance? Do biometric SIM requirements enable access or create tracking infrastructure?
  3. Which systems help vs harm? Without tracking outcomes, we're guessing.
  4. What safeguards are needed? Is data secure? Who has access? Can individuals control their own data?
  5. When should we course-correct? By the time we realize we were wrong without tracking, it may be too late to reverse.

The Solution: Transparent Tracking Enables Evidence-Based Governance

Automation Enables Evidence, Not Just Efficiency

"Harnessing AI and data scraping technology to quickly extract information from online human rights sources such as the UPR provides an important tool to reduce costs associated with research and advocacy and may improve and accelerate access to justice for many victims of human rights violations."

"It is therefore vital for computational models to handle what data does exist and to streamline all formats of data when incidents are documented."

— Vollmer & Vollmer (2022), Section 4.3

Why Computational Methods Matter

Actively seeking and searching for updates with methods that can be automated, or with those that add efficiency and ease of regular compilation and assessment of accumulated data, may provide "fundamental support not easily obtained through more traditional means."

This is particularly beneficial where amassing coherent information is divided by:

  • Geography - Dispersed institutions across regions
  • Language - Multiple official languages and local documentation
  • Time - Longitudinal tracking across review cycles, policy changes, technological shifts
  • Support - Varying levels of institutional capacity
  • Directive - Different organizational mandates and priorities

The Core Methodological Principle

Transparent tracking replaces assumptions with evidence, enabling informed decisions BEFORE consequences become irreversible.

When decisions about vulnerable populations' rights are made without evidence, the outcome is predictable: assumptions favor those already in power, marginalized populations bear the consequences, and by the time harm is documented, it's too late to reverse.

The counter-strategy: Produce consistent, explicit, and irrefutable indications of actual patterns—what's happening, who's affected, what outcomes result—BEFORE decisions become permanent. This forces evidence-based governance and enables accountability for:

  • State actors committing or enabling violence
  • Governments deploying systems that may harm vulnerable populations
  • Technology companies making irreversible decisions about data collection
  • Institutions failing to protect fundamental rights (access, control, privacy, security)

Cultural Sensitivity and Non-Imposing Analysis

This research examines human rights policies across 194 countries with vastly different cultural, legal, and religious contexts. For topics like LGBTQ+ rights and child protection—where perspectives differ dramatically across societies—our methodology must distinguish between objective measurement and value imposition.

Three-part analytical framework:

  1. Document what policies exist (objective measurement)
    • What laws are on the books?
    • What enforcement mechanisms are available?
    • What data collection systems are deployed?
  2. Analyze enforcement mechanisms (technical assessment)
    • Evaluate by what policies require in order to be enforced at scale
    • Track enforcement primitives: Verify → Register → Retain → Link → Deactivate
    • Assess technical capability and infrastructure deployment
  3. Evaluate impact on vulnerable populations (research focus)
    • How do these systems affect autonomy and self-determination?
    • What are the risks of weaponization against marginalized groups?
    • Do implementations help or harm vulnerable populations?

What we do NOT do:

  • ❌ Impose Western-centric values about what laws "should" exist
  • ❌ Oversimplify complex cultural contexts
  • ❌ Prescribe policy solutions
  • ❌ Ignore regional differences in legal traditions

Why this matters:

A project tracking LGBTQ+ criminalization and biometric data collection must acknowledge that while we document facts objectively, our analysis explicitly focuses on protecting vulnerable populations from harm. This is not value-neutral research—our research question is whether systems help or harm marginalized groups—but it is methodologically rigorous in separating measurement from interpretation.

See Data Governance: Cultural Sensitivity for full framework.

How This Principle Informs GRIMdata Projects

Shared Methodological Framework

Both research tracks implement the same transparency principles:

  1. Versioned configurations - Explicit patterns, tagged rule sets, timestamped processing
  2. Complete provenance - Source URLs maintained, processing history tracked, transformations documented
  3. Reproducible workflows - Tested code (124+ tests), comprehensive documentation (25+ markdown files), installation guides
  4. Format resilience - Handle inconsistent data (PDF, Word, HTML, broken links, varying terminology)
  5. Automated monitoring - Regular compilation, change detection, continuous tracking
  6. Accessible methods - "Do it yourself" capability, lower barriers to research and advocacy

Different Governance Questions, Same Methodological Answer

Track A: LittleRainbowRights (Child & LGBTQ+ Digital Rights)

The governance question: Who should control vulnerable populations' digital rights when current decision-makers (parents, governments, companies) may not be qualified to protect those rights?

What we need to know:

  • Which systems help vs harm? AI deployment, identity verification systems, biometric identification, surveillance infrastructure
  • What trade-offs exist? Access vs privacy, protection vs exposure, education vs data collection
  • Who can secure data properly? Many countries can't, many companies won't
  • What happens when we get it wrong? Consequences are permanent (biometric data "everywhere forever")
  • How do we course-correct? Only possible if we track outcomes BEFORE it's too late

The tracking response:

  • 194 countries, 10 indicators tracking actual policy deployments: 
    1. Data Protection Law (comprehensive legislation governing personal data)
2. DPA Independence (Data Protection Authority independence from executive control)
3. Children's Data Safeguards (child-specific data governance safeguards in binding law)
4. Child Online Protection Strategy (national COP framework addressing online harms)
5. SOGI Sensitive Data (sexual orientation/gender identity as sensitive data)
6. LGBTQ+ Legal Status (legal recognition and protection of LGBTQ+ individuals)
7. LGBTQ+ Promotion/Propaganda Offences (laws restricting LGBTQ+ advocacy/discussion)
8. AI Policy Status (are safeguards in place for high-risk AI?)
9. DPIA Required for High-Risk AI (Data Protection Impact Assessments mandatory?)
10. SIM Biometric ID Linkage (does biometric registration enable access or tracking?)
  • 2,543 validated source URLs from UNESCO, UNCTAD, ILGA, UNICEF
  • Automated validation, change detection, format standardization
  • Planned NLTK integration for sentiment analysis, topic modeling, outcome assessment

NOT assuming digital systems are good or bad—tracking outcomes to enable evidence-based decisions about:

  • Right to access digital infrastructure (vulnerable populations may NEED technology)
  • Right to control your own data (who decides? parents who don't understand? governments who may harm? companies who can't secure?)

Planned enhancements: Sentiment analysis on policy documents, topic modeling for identifying patterns, cross-indicator correlation analysis (LGBTQ+ legal status Ă— biometric data collection = potential weaponization?), longitudinal outcome tracking to assess whether policies help or harm over time

Mechanism-Based Risk Analysis: When "Safety" Becomes Identity Enforcement

Many high-impact governance changes are not introduced as overt restrictions. They are introduced as reasonable, widely agreeable commitments—"protect children," "stop exploitation," "parental rights," "accountability," "online safety," "verification." In practice, the harm often arrives through the enforcement mechanism, not the stated goal.

Core analytical principle:

Evaluate Mechanisms, Not Just Intent

Do not evaluate policies only by what they claim to do. Evaluate them by what they require in order to be enforced at scale.

The "Yes-Yes" Pattern: Coalition by Agreement, Harm by Implementation

A common policy pathway looks like this:

  1. Soft gating exists (age declarations, account age heuristics, "must be 13+" rules)
  2. Critics argue soft gating is ineffective: "children can bypass it"
  3. A second, widely agreeable claim is added: "parents must decide / platforms can't decide"
  4. To make that enforceable, systems move toward hard verification:
  5. Government ID checks
  6. SIM/telecom identity linkage
  7. Biometric verification or biometric national ID dependency

The result is a shift from "content rules" to identity infrastructure.

This creates a predictable trade-off: improved enforceability can come at the cost of privacy, access, and safety for vulnerable users—especially LGBTQ+ youth and children in unsafe homes.

Why This Matters for LGBTQ+ Youth and Children

When identity binding becomes strict, the system doesn't need to explicitly target LGBTQ+ information to produce discriminatory outcomes. The exclusion can become structural:

  • Parent-first enforcement can block access to support resources for youth with non-affirming parents
  • Strong identity trails increase the risk of outing, retaliation, and selective enforcement where LGBTQ+ status is criminalized or stigmatized
  • Biometric linkage raises the stakes further because biometrics are persistent and non-revocable ("can't un-collect")

The Enforcement Primitives That Change Everything

Across jurisdictions, the highest-risk shifts tend to share a small set of enforcement primitives:

  1. Verify (prove age/identity)
  2. Register (bind identity to access)
  3. Retain (store data for auditing/enforcement)
  4. Link (connect telecom, civil registry, or biometric systems)
  5. Deactivate (punish non-compliance by cutting access)

These primitives are powerful because they scale—often beyond the original policy scope.

How LittleRainbowRights Tracks This Mechanism, Not Just the Narrative

LittleRainbowRights is designed to detect when "agreeable" stances become enforceable identity regimes by tracking what systems require in practice, using indicators that expose the enforcement surface:

Legal exposure indicators: - LGBTQ_Legal_Status - Legal recognition or criminalization - Promotion_Propaganda_Offences - Visibility restrictions

Identity binding infrastructure: - SIM_Biometric_ID_Linkage - Biometric requirement for digital access

Protection framework indicators: - Children_Data_Safeguards - Child-specific data governance safeguards in binding law - COP_Strategy - National COP framework addressing online harms

Privacy safeguards: - SOGI_Sensitive_Data - Sexual orientation/gender identity as protected sensitive data

A simple interaction that often signals elevated risk:

High-Risk Indicator Combination

(LGBTQ_Legal_Status = criminalized OR Promotion_Propaganda_Offences = present)

Ă—

(SIM_Biometric_ID_Linkage = mandatory)

→ Increased likelihood that "protection" mechanisms can be used for selective enforcement or exclusion

This is not a claim about intent in any single case. It's a claim about predictable power outcomes when enforceability depends on identity binding—especially in environments where LGBTQ+ visibility or autonomy is already legally constrained.

By tracking enforcement mechanisms rather than just policy narratives, we can identify risks BEFORE they become irreversible outcomes.

Track B: SGBV-UPR Expansion (Sexual & Gender-Based Violence)

The governance question: How do we hold perpetrators accountable when violence documentation systems fail during the very crises that intensify violations?

What we need to know:

  • Where is violence occurring? During armed conflict, pandemic lockdowns, political instability
  • Who is perpetrating? State actors, non-state actors, enabled by institutional failure
  • What patterns exist? SGBV as weapon of war, domestic violence during forced confinement, rights erosions during crisis
  • Are interventions working? Without baseline data, we can't assess effectiveness
  • How do we course-correct? Only possible with transparent documentation

The tracking response:

  • Global expansion (all 194 UN member states, beyond original SADC focus)
  • UPR Cycle 4 integration (current recommendations)
  • Pandemic-era violence pattern analysis (2020-2023: lockdowns, forced confinement, economic stressors)
  • Wartime SGBV monitoring and data preservation methodologies
  • Modern AI tools (sentiment analysis for urgency detection, transformer-based topic modeling, entity extraction)

Planned enhancements: Urgency detection in recommendations, tone analysis, longitudinal trend analysis across UPR Cycles 1-4 to assess whether interventions reduce violence over time, real-time monitoring of contemporary conflicts

The Connection

Both tracks address the same foundational governance challenge:

Problem: Decisions affecting marginalized populations' fundamental rights → made by potentially wrong actors → based on assumptions not evidence → with permanent/irreversible consequences → by the time we know we were wrong, TOO LATE to reverse

Solution: Transparent computational tracking → documents actual patterns → enables evidence-based decisions → BEFORE consequences become irreversible → allows course-correction while still possible

The difference is what kind of irreversible decision is being made:

  • Physical violence: Who intervenes? How? With what resources? Accountability mechanisms?
  • Digital systems: Who controls data? What systems deploy? What safeguards required? Who gets access?

But the methodological response is identical: Version-controlled, transparent, reproducible documentation that replaces assumptions with evidence, enabling informed governance BEFORE it's too late.

Key Insights from Published Research

On Format Inconsistencies

Cycle-Dependent Refinement

"At present the UPR documents are not consistent in terms of presentation: individual member states may respond to the Working Group in multiple accepted formats, document files are displayed in PDF or Word Documents, several broken links were identified... terminology and textual structure of responses and recommendations vary from cycle to cycle."

However, "updates to the UPR documents were actively occurring to remedy some of these issues. Changes within the documentation itself are noted as 'cycle dependent' in that each cycle of the UPR demonstrates refinement in the format of responses and recommendations where consistent language is being favoured."

— Vollmer & Vollmer (2022), Section 4.2

This observation applies equally to digital rights documentation: Policy formats evolve, terminology standardizes over time, and computational methods must handle both current inconsistencies and future improvements. We can't wait for perfect data before making decisions—systems must work with what exists.

On Multi-Language Accessibility

The original research suggests "replications of the model as developed can be expanded to interpret these same SGBV, SOGIESC, and LGBTQ+ results in all five official languages of the UN."

This principle extends to digital rights tracking: Global governance decisions require evidence from multiple languages, not just English-language sources. Digital systems don't only affect English-speaking populations.

On Sentiment Analysis Imperative

"Further refinement of the model for language interpretation uniquely tuned to the UPR documents and their formatting is a natural extension... This is imperative for efficiently isolating context-specific judgement valuations."

This applies to both research tracks: Understanding not just WHAT policies say, but HOW they're framed—urgency, severity, tone—provides critical context for assessing whether to act NOW or wait, whether systems pose immediate danger or can be carefully evaluated.

SOGIESC Rights: The Transitive Nature Challenge

Volatile and Impermanent Standards

"In particular, the unique nature of SOGIESC rights is, at present, transitive in nature with regards to gaining or losing traction on human rights and is often dependent on volatile and impermanent social and cultural standards for acceptance or understanding."

— Vollmer & Vollmer (2022), Section 4.3

SOGIESC: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics

This volatility makes evidence-based governance critical. Rights can be gained in one policy cycle and lost in the next. Digital protections can be implemented one year and reversed the next. Without continuous, systematic monitoring, these reversals become invisible until it's too late to prevent permanent harm.

Example: A country implements data protection laws → then passes "anti-promotion" laws criminalizing LGBTQ+ content → then requires biometric identification for digital access → the combination enables tracking and persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals. Without tracking all three indicators together, the danger isn't visible until people are already at risk.

Continuing to sift through immense levels of available data, and by producing consistent, explicit, and irrefutable indications on actual patterns whenever possible, will arguably force evidence-based governance decisions to remain at the forefront while enabling accountability.

This principle—evidence before irreversible decisions—unifies both research tracks.

Design Principles Drawn from This Context

From Vollmer & Vollmer (2022)

1. Transparency Over Opacity

"Tolerating the deterioration of these rights is a course of action that should be altered and supported by human rights institutions."

Implementation: Versioned configurations with explicit patterns rather than opaque algorithms. Researchers can see exactly WHY each tag was applied, HOW each recommendation was extracted, WHICH sources were used. This enables independent verification and prevents "trust us" governance.

2. Resilience Over Efficiency

"It is therefore vital for computational models to handle what data does exist and to streamline all formats of data when incidents are documented."

Implementation: Fallback handlers attempt multiple processors sequentially. Dual scrapers (requests + Selenium) ensure robustness. Retry logic with parallel workers for URL validation. We can't wait for perfect data before making decisions—systems must work with what exists now.

3. Provenance Over Convenience

Need for "consistent, explicit, and irrefutable indications."

Implementation: Every document maintains complete processing history. Source URLs preserved. Tag versions timestamped. Metadata tracks exactly which rules were applied when. This enables accountability: decisions can be traced back to evidence, assumptions can be challenged.

4. Accessibility Over Gatekeeping

"Reduce costs associated with research and advocacy and may improve and accelerate access to justice."

Implementation: Comprehensive documentation (25+ markdown files), "do it yourself" installation guides, tested procedures (124+ tests), MIT license for code, CC BY 4.0 for data. Evidence shouldn't be locked behind institutional or financial barriers when decisions affect vulnerable populations.

5. Continuity Over Perfection

"Actively seeking and searching for updates with methods that can be automated... may provide fundamental support not easily obtained through more traditional means."

Implementation: Automated scrapers continue collection even when traditional methods fail. Change detection monitors sources for updates. The pipeline maintains continuity rather than waiting for perfect data. By the time data is perfect, decisions have already been made and may be irreversible.

Recommendations from Published Research

From Vollmer & Vollmer (2022), Section 4.3:

1. Automate Data Collection

"Actively seeking and searching for updates with methods that can be automated, or with those that add efficiency and ease of regular compilation and assessment of accumulated data."

Applied to both tracks: Scrapers run regularly, change detection monitors sources, validators check URL availability. Continuous monitoring enables evidence-based course-correction BEFORE consequences become irreversible.

2. Handle All Available Data Formats

"It is therefore vital for computational models to handle what data does exist and to streamline all formats of data when incidents are documented."

Applied to both tracks: PDF, Word, HTML processors with fallback handlers. Broken link detection with alternative URL tracking. Varying terminology handled through versioned tag configurations. Can't wait for perfect formats—must work with messy reality.

3. Support Dispersed Institutions

Enable compilation of coherent information "divided by departments or institutions which are separated by geography, language, time, support, or directive."

Applied to both tracks: Global source coverage (AU, OHCHR, UPR, UNICEF, UNESCO, UNCTAD, ILGA). Multi-format support. Planned multi-language expansion. Evidence scattered across institutions still needs synthesis for governance decisions.

4. Maintain Visibility During Volatility

"Continuing to sift through the immense level of available data, and by producing consistent, explicit, and irrefutable indications... will arguably force these human rights issues to remain at the forefront."

Applied to both tracks: Timeline exports (global, country, regional). Comparison tools across versions. Longitudinal tracking across cycles. Sustained visibility prevents "out of sight, out of mind" when decisions become normalized and irreversible.

5. Reduce Barriers to Justice/Evidence

"Reduce costs associated with research and advocacy and may improve and accelerate access to justice for many victims of human rights violations."

Applied to both tracks: Open source code (MIT), open data (CC BY 4.0), comprehensive documentation, tested installation procedures, CSV exports for immediate analysis. Lower barriers enable more voices in evidence-based governance decisions.

The Unified Mission

GRIMdata exists because: Decisions affecting marginalized populations' fundamental rights are being made RIGHT NOW with PERMANENT consequences, often by the WRONG actors (those who may harm or fail to protect), based on ASSUMPTIONS rather than EVIDENCE. By the time we realize assumptions were wrong, it's often TOO LATE to reverse course.

The methodological response: Transparent, automated, reproducible computational tracking that produces consistent, explicit, and irrefutable indications of actual patterns—replacing assumptions with evidence BEFORE decisions become irreversible.

Two research tracks, one principle:

  • LittleRainbowRights: Document digital system deployments to enable evidence-based governance of vulnerable populations' fundamental rights (access to digital infrastructure, control over own data)
  • SGBV-UPR: Document violence patterns to enable evidence-based accountability and intervention decisions

The connection: Both refuse to accept irreversible harm based on untested assumptions. Evidence-based governance is the counter-strategy to "by the time we know we were wrong, it's too late."

Core rights at stake:

  • Right to access digital infrastructure (vulnerable populations may NEED technology)
  • Right to control your own data (who decides? parents? governments? companies?)
  • Right to safety from violence (physical and digital)
  • Right to evidence-based governance rather than governance by assumption

Published Source

This research context draws from:

Vollmer, SC and Vollmer, DT. (2022). Global perspectives of Africa: Harnessing the universal periodic review to process sexual and gender-based violence in SADC member states. Stellenbosch Law Review, 33(1), 8–41.

DOI: 10.47348/SLR/2022/i1a1

Sections referenced:

  • Section 4.2: Future adaptability (UPR format evolution, sentiment analysis for urgency detection)
  • Section 4.3: Recommendations (automation, data handling, accountability, reducing barriers)

Citation

BibTeX

@article{vollmer2022sgbv,
  title = {Global perspectives of Africa: Harnessing the universal periodic review to process sexual and gender-based violence in SADC member states},
  author = {Vollmer, SC and Vollmer, DT},
  journal = {Stellenbosch Law Review},
  volume = {33},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8--41},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.47348/SLR/2022/i1a1},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2022/i1a1}
}

APA

Vollmer, S. C., & Vollmer, D. T. (2022). Global perspectives of Africa: Harnessing the universal periodic review to process sexual and gender-based violence in SADC member states. Stellenbosch Law Review, 33(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2022/i1a1

Last updated: January 2026