Human rights bodies have been created to monitor compliance by states parties with the rights and obligations contained in their respective treaties. Such bodies generally have similar mandates to review periodic state reports, undertake inquiries, issue general comments or recommendations, and hear (optionally) complaints or communications by those persons claiming their rights were violated. This essay examines the juridical value of the resulting pronouncements made by the different human rights bodies. It examines the development over time of the practice of treaty bodies and pronouncements they themselves have made about the juridical value of their decisions, comments, and views. The conclusion undertakes an assessment of the notion of authoritativeness and the degree of deference owed by states to the pronouncements of human rights treaty bodies. The study indicates that the ambivalent, often reticent attitude of governments towards human rights law—revealed in the deliberately limited powers of treaty bodies—has failed to halt the creative development of procedures that allow for normative evolution and genuine scrutiny of compliance by states parties. The expansion of juridical status for the determinations of human rights bodies reflects the fact that effective promotion and protection of internationally guaranteed human rights requires a degree of international accountability, even if the role of international bodies is subsidiary to national implementation.