A/HRC/28/65 30 per cent in that period. As a result, a number of provisions of the act were declared unconstitutional. The court ordered the enactment of new legislation that would ensure a dignified minimum standard of living and introduced a transitional scheme that would provide higher cash benefits in the interim.26 IV. Obstacles to justiciability and the right to food 26. While there has been considerable legislative and judicial progress in many countries throughout the world since the adoption of the Right to Food Guidelines (see A/68/288), examples of cases whereby national courts have actually issued rulings on the regulations relating to the right to food are scarce.27 The only way that the full realization of the right to adequate food and nutrition can be achieved is by ensuring that the rights of victims are protected. Restrictions on justiciability must therefore be prevented. This section will seek to highlight some of the obstacles that continue to hamper progress in this regard. A. Resistance from some States and lack of political will 27. A rights-based approach to food security is paramount to ensure that the fundamental right to be free from hunger is upheld, with States obliged to do everything in their power to guarantee that everyone has access at all times to adequate, safe and nutrientrich food in order to lead healthy lives. Yet, despite the fact that the right to food has been enshrined in international law, many States remain reluctant to recognize it and to constitutionalize it as a basic right with justiciable effect.28 28. While the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant represented a significant step in terms of ensuring justice for the victims of violations of economic, social and cultural rights, to date only 15 States are currently party thereto, in comparison with 115 parties to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.29 This in itself is representative of the fact that many States have failed to develop a judicial culture of recognition in practice, or the necessary legal frameworks required to ensure that the rights enshrined in the Covenant, including the right to food, are justiciable. In some countries, it is the case that international human rights conventions are not considered as formal sources of law and, even where they may be incorporated into national law, these rights may not provide criminal punishment or financial compensations, but rather expresses a moral conviction without legal force. 30 In some States, even when justiciable rights are enshrined in the Constitution, there is a reluctance to acknowledge their relevance. There is also certain reluctance at the regional level, with many European States failing to recognize the direct applicability of the Covenant in domestic law.31 In Africa, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides no option for complaints relating to the violation of the right to food. 29. Accountability at international, regional and national levels is paramount to ensuring that the right to food and its correlative obligations are being implemented. At the domestic level, it is imperative that constitutional principles and framework laws are established as a 26 27 28 29 30 31 For more details on this case see www.escr-net.org/node/364979. Vivero Pol, “Hunger for Justice in Latin America”, p. 14. Civil Society Synthesis Report, 10 Years of the Right to Adequate Food Guidelines (2014). As of June 2014. Vivero Pol, “Hunger for Justice in Latin America”. Civil Society Synthesis Report, 10 Years. 9