text: (i) The limitation of cross-temporal comparability of indicators, both between and within States; (j) The use of indicators of a percentage type which can create difficulties in terms of how to measure growth or change of such indicators; (k) Indicators are often indirect or incomplete measures of what they are intended to indicate; (1) Indicators do not always reflect the human condition in a meaningful way and may be an easy way to avoid attacking the actual root causes of poverty and related concerns; (m) The necessity of relying upon nationally collected indicators which, if such statistics are utilized in a human rights framework of assessment, may result in biased figures. 9. These imperfections are central issues in any analysis of their use in the assessment of human rights. For instance, because economic, social and cultural rights are rights of the individual, the general scope of many indicators may preclude their direct application, other than for obtaining a general overview of a particular situation. 10. Several of these issues demand greater elaboration. For instance, the question of whether to rely upon and utilize national, regional or locally specific indicators or those of international relevance remains controversial. The United Nations Statistical Commission has frequently reiterated the importance of a non-directive approach to indicators, focusing on possibilities and alternatives to suit particular circumstances rather than a single fixed set of universally valid indicators. 4/ In the mid-1950s a United Nations Committee of Experts on the International Definition and Measurement of Standards and Levels of Living found that the development of "a single unified index of the level of living was neither possible nor desirable, for purposes of international comparison under present circumstances". ¿/ Since then it has been generally argued that an overall 
analysis: The text discusses the limitations and challenges of using indicators to assess human rights, particularly economic, social, and cultural rights. It highlights the difficulties in measuring growth or change, the indirect nature of indicators, and the potential for bias in national statistics. The text also references the importance of a non-directive approach to indicators and the controversy surrounding the use of national, regional, or international indicators.