the relevant Covenant provisions. The Committee has already made clear that it considers many of the provisions in the Covenant to be capable of immediate implementation. Thus, in General Comment No. 3 (1990) it cited, by way of example, articles 3; 7, paragraph (a) (i); 8; 10, paragraph 3; 13, paragraph 2 (a); 13, paragraph 3; 13, paragraph 4; and 15, paragraph 3. It is important in this regard to distinguish between justiciability (which refers to those matters which are appropriately resolved by the courts) and norms which are self-executing treaties, the provisions of which are deemed by courts to be self-executing. regularly D. The treatment of the Covenant in domestic courts 12. In the Committee’s guidelines for States’ reports, States are requested to provide information as to whether the provisions of the Covenant “can be invoked before, and directly enforced by, the Courts, other tribunals or administrative authorities”.* Some (capable of being applied by courts without further elaboration). While the general approach of each legal system needs to be taken into account, there is no Covenant right which could not, in the great States have provided such information, but greater importance should be attached to this element in future reports. In particular, the Committee requests that States parties provide details of any significant jurisprudence from their domestic courts that makes majority use of the provisions of the Covenant. of systems, be considered to possess at least some significant justiciable dimensions. It is sometimes suggested that matters involving the allocation of resources should be left to the political authorities rather than the courts. While the respective competences of the various branches of government must be respected, it is appropriate to acknowledge involved that courts in a considerable are generally range already of matters which 13. On the basis of available information, it is clear that State practice is mixed. The Committee notes that some courts have applied the provisions of the Covenant either directly or as interpretive standards. Other courts are willing to acknowledge, in principle, the relevance of the Covenant for interpreting domestic law, but in practice, the impact of the have important resource implications. The adoption Covenant of is very limited. Still other courts have refused to give any degree of legai effect to the Covenant in cases in which individuals have sought to rely on it. There remains extensive scope for the courts in most countries to place greater reliance upon the Covenant. a rigid classification of economic, social and cultural rights which puts them, by definition, beyond the reach of the courts would thus be arbitrary and incompatible with the principle that the two sets of human rights are indivisible and interdependent. It would also drastically curtail the capacity of the courts to protect the rights of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society. Self-executing on the reasoning or outcome of cases 14. Within the limits of the appropriate exercise of their functions of judicial review, courts should take account of Covenant rights where this is necessary to ensure that the State’s conduct is consistent with its obligations under the Covenant. Neglect by the courts of this responsibility is incompatible with 11. The Covenant does not negate the possibility that the rights it contains may be considered selfexecuting in systems where that option is provided the principle of the rule of law, which must always for. Indeed, when it was being drafted, attempts to include a specific provision in the Covenant to the be taken to include respect for international rights obligations. effect that were strongly it be considered rejected. In “non-self-executing” most States, the determination of whether or not a treaty provision is self-executing will be a matter for the courts, not the executive or the legislature. In order to perform that function effectively, the relevant courts and tribunals must be made aware of the nature and implications of the Covenant and of the important role of judicial remedies in its implementation. Thus, for example, when Governments are invoived in court proceedings, they should promote interpretations of domestic laws which give effect to their Covenant obligations. Similarly, judicial training should take full account of the justiciability of the Covenant. It is especially important to avoid any a priori assumption that the norms should be considered to be non-self-executing. In fact. many of them are stated in terms which are at least as clear and specific as those in other human rights 28 human cure ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS HANDBOOK 15. It is generally accepted that domestic law should be interpreted as far as possible in a way which conforms to a State’s international legal obligations. Thus, when a domestic decision maker is faced with a choice between an interpretation of domestic law that would place the State in breach of the Covenant and one that would enable the State to comply with the Covenant, international law requires the choice of the latter. Guarantees of equality and non- discrimination should be interpreted, to the greatest extent possible, in ways which facilitate the full protection of economic, social and cultural rights. ©1996-2001 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Geneva, Switzerland 4 Rights See E/1991/23, annex IV, chap. A, para. 1 (d) (iv).