rights progressively (including the right to education); and provide judicial remedies.115 However, there is a lack of international enforcement power to ensure that this occurs, except for political sanctions and monitoring by international organisations such as CESCR.116 Where the justiciability of the right to education is guaranteed in State legislation, accountability of the State for breaches of the right to education will be ensured. Individuals must be able to have legal recourse where their right to education has been violated, as they are the beneficiaries of the right.117 The ability for individuals to invoke the right to education before a judicial or quasi-judicial body is fundamental to the existence and continued strengthening of the right. It is critical that individuals know about the avenues for redress and possible remedies.118 To achieve this, individuals must receive minimum basic education so that they are empowered to seek redress.119 This somewhat circular proposition means that where individuals receive minimum basic education, the justiciability of the right to education will be assured as the judicial processes are more likely to be accessible to all.120 Interaction between domestic law and international instruments on the right to education As discussed above, jurisprudence has increasingly confirmed the justiciability of the right to education.121 However, the enforceability of the right to education depends on where the right 115 UN Special Rapporteur on Education, E/CN.4/2005/50 17 December 2004, http://daccessdds.un.org /doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/171/40/PDF/G0417140.pdf?OpenElement (last accessed 27 March 2007) para 52; see also CESCR General Comment 3: The nature of States parties obligations, 5th session 14 December 1990 http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+3.En?Ope nDocument (last accessed 27 March 2007) especially at paras 2, 5, 9. The Supreme Court of India interprets the right to education to encompass a citizen’s right to call upon the State to provide educational facilities to him within the limits of its economic capacity and development – Unni Krishnan JP v State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645, at 737 para 181, 182. 116 UNESCO(CR)/ECOSOC(CESCR) Joint Expert Group on the Monitoring of the Right to Education Justiciability of the Right to Education 175 EX/28 12-13 May 2006, at paras 3, 7 and 10. Some international instruments include a specific time limit for the implementation of certain aspects of the right to education – Freeman, Van Ert, International Human Rights Law, 2004, at 79. 117 UNESCO (CR)/ECOSOC (CESCR) Joint Expert Group on the Monitoring of the Right to Education, Justiciability of the Right to Education 175EX/28 12 - 13 May 2006, para 1. 118 UNESCO (CR)/ECOSOC (CESCR) Joint Expert Group on the Monitoring of the Right to Education, Justiciability of the Right to Education 175EX/28 12 - 13 May 2006, para 19. 119 UNESCO(CR)/ECOSOC(CESCR) Joint Expert Group on the Monitoring of the Right to Education Justitiability of the Right to Education 175 EX/28 12 - 13 May 2006, at para 19. 120 UNESCO(CR)/ECOSOC(CESCR) Joint Expert Group on the Monitoring of the Right to Education Justitiability of the Right to Education 175 EX/28 12 - 13 May 2006, at para 19. 121 Dilcia Yean y Violeta Bosica (Case No 12 189) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 22 February 2001 and Unni Krishnan JP v State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645, at para 183, page 738. Autism Europe v France Complaint No. 13/2002 Committee of Social Rights. Freeman, Van Ert, International Human Rights Law, 2004, at 79; UNESCO CESCR General Comment no. 3 The nature of State party obligations Article 2, 5th session 14 December 1990, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/do 66