States targeted by human rights criticism usually do something—whether ratifying treaties, passing laws, establishing institutions, prosecuting perpetrators, or shifting discourse. But how do we know how coordinated, comprehensive, and effective these actions are? This article proposes five questions to assess how willing a state is to take the steps necessary to meaningfully respond to human rights crises. It applies this approach to two human rights crises in Mexico: femicides and violence against women, and disappearances. This approach effectively differentiates state responses that initially appear similar, demonstrating that the Mexican government has been more willing to address violence against women and femicides than disappearances. An explanation for this difference in outcomes points to a combination of factors related to the underlying preferences of the government involved, the characteristics of victims, and the specific human right being violated.

受到人权批评的国家通常会有所行动——无论是批准条约、通过法律、建立机构、起诉肇事者，还是转移话语权。但是我们如何知道这些行动的协调性、综合性和有效性呢？本文提出了五个问题来评估一个国家采取必要措施有效应对人权危机的意愿。它将这种方法应用于墨西哥的两次人权危机：杀害女性和对妇女的暴力行为，以及失踪。这种方法有效地区分了最初看似相似的国家反应，表明墨西哥政府更愿意解决暴力侵害妇女和杀害女性的问题，而不是失踪问题。