A/HRC/5/3 page 12 16 in his second report that concrete programmes of action that can alleviate poverty must first be identified, then they must first be proven to be not only technically feasible but also institutionally implementable, with some minor, but well-specified processes of institutional and legal reforms, supported by international assistance, both in terms of resources and rules and procedures of international transactions. 23. The most important feature of this institutional framework within which the removal of poverty is seen as a denial of human rights, would be that the institutions would ensure accountability of duty-bearers and would foster effective participation of rights-holders in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of policies. The right to participate in policy processes is an essential part of the process aspect of the human rights approach and a value in itself as recognized by the independent expert in his earlier report on the Right to Development.17 Indeed he had referred to the concept of the right to development, that was recognized in international human rights law through the adoption of the Declaration of the Right to Development of 1986 and reiterated by international consensus in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993. “The right to development is a right to a process of improvement of well-being when all fundamental freedoms and human rights are realized.”18 That process of progressive realization of this right must be based on the principles of equity and non-discrimination, as well as participation, accountability and transparency. In that sense, the condition of extreme poverty can be considered as the denial or violation of the right to development for a group of people identified as poor by society.19 24. During the above-mentioned workshop, there was an interesting discussion on the applicability of the notion of violation to the international community, once a human right is recognized as entailing both national and international obligations. The independent expert had earlier invoked the concept of “perfect and imperfect obligation”; perfect obligations are associated with duties that have a direct impact on the exercise of the right, while imperfect obligations have an indirect impact, contingent upon other duty-holders carrying out their obligations. The direct duties relate to perfect obligation and if those duties are not performed the duty-bearers may be regarded as a “violator” even if when performed, the duties may not, on their own, completely solve the problems of poverty. All duties are related to the outcome with a probability, as there is no certainty that any policy will always produce the intended result. Direct duties are those that if not performed, there is a high likelihood that the results would not be achieved, but whose impact could be clearly attributed to a duty-bearer responsible for contributing to the fulfilment of the objective. Indirect duties, however, are in the nature of imperfect obligations as their impact on the final outcome is very much dependent upon the activities of other agents, so that the non-fulfilment of the result, cannot be attributed to the non-performance of a specific duty-holder. In this sense, the obligations of the international 16 E/CN.4/2006/43, p. 15, para. 50. 17 E/CN.4/2000/WG.18/CRP.1. 18 See E/CN.4/2005/49, p. 11, para. 33. 19 See E/CN.4/2005/49, p. 11, para. 33.