5. Thus, within the framework of this progress evaluation model, the WGPSS identifies three types of indicators: (i) structural 39; (ii) process 40; and, (iii) outcome, 41 organized under three conceptual categories: (i) incorporation of the right 42; (ii) financial context and budgetary commitment 43; and, (iii) state or institutional capacities 44; and three cross-cutting principles: (a) equality and non-discrimination; (b) access to justice; and, (c) access to information and participation. 45 In this framework, the WGPSS points out that: States can meet their obligations by choosing from a broad range of courses of action and policies. It is not for the international monitoring system to judge those options that each State, with a degree of discretion and according to participatory mechanisms, has adopted for realizing the rights contained in the Protocol. It will be necessary, however, to determine if those public policies ensure fulfillment of their positive obligations -whether immediate or progressive- under the Protocol. 46 6. In short, progress indicators are a tool for analyzing the level of compliance (progress or setbacks) of States from a general perspective and, also, from a particular approach with respect to certain rights. To this end, the WGPSS has as its central axis the principle of progressivity (and, consequently, the obligation of non-regressivity) of economic, social, and cultural rights, in the sense that the precariousness and worsening of the levels of protection of such rights, without adequate justification, will imply a regression prohibited by the Protocol of San Salvador. 47 C. Analysis of the instant case 1. As explained in the first part of this opinion, although neither the Commission 39 Structural indicators reflect the ratification or approval of basic international legal instruments to facilitate the realization of a fundamental human right. Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 33. 40 Process indicators seek to measure the quality and magnitude of the State's efforts to implement rights by measuring the scope, coverage, and content of strategies, plans, programs, or policies, or other specific activities and interventions aimed at achieving goals that correspond to the realization of a given right. Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 34. 41 Outcome indicators reflect individual and collective achievements that indicate the state of realization of a human right in a given context. Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 35. 42 Through the category of the reception of the right in the legal system, in the institutional apparatus and in public policies, the aim is to obtain relevant information on the way in which a right included in the Protocol is incorporated in the domestic regulatory system and in public policies. Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 37. 43 Through the category of the basic financial context and budgetary commitments, we seek to evaluate the effective availability of State resources to execute Public Social Expenditure, its distribution measured in the usual way (percentage of Gross Domestic Product for each social sector) or by other indicators and budgetary commitments that allow us to evaluate the importance that the State itself is assigning to a given right. Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 39. 44 Through the category of state or institutional capacities, it implies reviewing how and under what parameters the State (and its various powers and departments) resolves the set of socially problematized issues. Particularly how they define their development goals and strategies and under what parameters the process of implementing the rights contained in the Protocol is inscribed. Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 40. 45 Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 15. 46 Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 23. 47 Cf. Progress indicators for the measurement of rights contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1OAS/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2 of December 16, 2011, para. 24. 10