A/HRC/31/28 guidance relating to good governance, for example the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its general comment No. 12 (1999) on the right to food, had stated that “Good governance is essential to the realization of all human rights, including the elimination of poverty and ensuring a satisfactory livelihood for all.” 6. The growing trend towards the privatization of public services had potential negative consequences for human rights. Reference was made to a recent report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education (A/HRC/29/30), which described how opening up the education sector to privatization and commercialization might result in a failure to ensure universal access to education and undermine the right to education. Where public services were privatized or provided by way of public-private partnerships, States must therefore ensure compliance with human rights and put in place effective quality control, accountability and monitoring mechanisms. III. Summary of the proceedings 7. In her opening remarks, Ms. Peters introduced the panellists. She referred to the OHCHR report on the role of the public service as an essential component of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights (A/HRC/25/27) and noted that the panel was premised on the idea that analysing the public service through a human rights lens could yield policy benefits. The mutually reinforcing links between human rights and a well-governed public service were reaffirmed. The human rights of ordinary citizens came into play when they interacted with the public service of their State or region. The human rights of public officials were also affected, notably their right to be selected, hired and promoted without discrimination; only civil servants who were remunerated properly, and whose human rights were respected, would be willing and able to perform their tasks without resorting to corruption. 8. The moderator explained that the terms “public service” or “public administration” were used interchangeably to cover the entire machinery funded by the State budget and in charge of the delivery of State functions undertaken by the various branches of government, namely law-making, the application of those laws and, finally, the enforcement of the laws. Throughout history, different cultures and political systems have had, and continued to maintain, diverging views about which functions the State should fulfil; how intensely; and with what level of priority. Accordingly, the analytical question of what belongs to the “public service” could be divided into the following sub-questions: (a) what must be done in the general interest of a given society (“for” the public); (b) by institutions funded and installed directly or indirectly by the public?; and (c) which services should be “public”, as opposed to being left to the realm of the private, individual and business sphere? The political choices made by States ranged from the very lean and minimal State and public administration, at one end of the spectrum, to a broader, full-fledged welfare State, at the other. 9. The human rights perspective was useful for identifying both the substantive content of the public services, as well as the process through which they should be offered. A State that had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for example, was ultimately responsible for securing some type of health system to realize the right to health. While this did not prohibit privatization of the health system, the State was still required to be the ultimate guarantor of the relevant right. Good governance was generally regarded as encompassing transparency, accountability, openness and participation;2 as well as integrity, non-discrimination, equality, efficiency and 2 Human Rights Council resolution 25/8. 3