A/HRC/32/31 most recommendations overall dealt with economic, social and cultural rights. For other regions, the figures were 20 to 30 per cent. Even more problematic, two thirds of the recommendations relating to economic, social and cultural rights called for only general action, as opposed to any specific outcome. 32 These results are consistent with the Special Rapporteur’s own survey, which indicated that up and including the twenty-second session of the Human Rights Council, 1,031 economic and social rights-related recommendations had been made. Of these, over 20 per cent called for ratification of the Covenant or the Optional Protocol, or withdrawal of reservations made at the time of ratification. Thirtythree recommendations called for greater cooperation with United Nations bodies working on economic, social and cultural rights; 182 called for legislative action on one or more specific economic and social rights, but almost none of these focused on specific legislative recognition of economic and social rights as human rights. Only 13, or 1.26 per cent, of the relevant recommendations specifically requested a State to take measures to guarantee the status of economic, social and cultural rights through constitutional amendments, enactment of legislation or by giving national courts jurisdiction to provide remedies for economic and social rights violations. 51. The main conclusion to be drawn for the purposes of the present report is that, insofar as the universal periodic review is an accurate indicator, States attach very limited importance to the recognition, institutionalization and accountability dimensions of economic and social rights. B. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 52. The Special Rapporteur has surveyed the Committee’s work since the beginning of 2014 to evaluate how it has approached the three elements in the RIA framework. This included State party reports, the relevant lists of issues and the concluding observations relating to 32 States parties, drawn more or less evenly from the different regional groups. 53. In one third of the 32 lists of issues considered, the Committee requested information about the status of the Covenant within the State’s domestic legal system. In almost all the lists, examples of cases in which domestic courts had considered or applied the Covenant were requested. In a little over half of the lists, States parties were asked about legislative measures taken to implement one or more of the rights. 54. The reports by States were consistent with the finding of widespread domestic recognition of economic and social rights. In 13 State party reports addressing the issue of the domestic law status of the Covenant, a range of statuses were reported: in some States, the Covenant applied directly, in others, it prevailed in cases of inconsistency, benefited from a “presumption of compatibility” or could be invoked as a persuasive authority. Half of the States indicated that the economic and social rights recognized in legislation or constitutional provisions were justiciable and one third of the States provided some examples of cases. 55. Despite these impressive reporting figures, in half of the concluding observations the Committee recommended that measures be taken to ensure the “direct applicability” of the Covenant in the domestic legal order. In slightly less than half of the concluding observations, the Committee also recommended that the State concerned seek to raise awareness of the justiciability of the rights. And in almost every concluding observation 32 See Center for Economic and Social Rights, “The universal periodic review: a skewed agenda?” (2016). 17