33 without any rank and enforceable in all the cases before competent authorities. In such respect, it is appropriate to mention the case-law of the European Court on Human Rights that, in the case of Airey, pointed out that: The Court is aware that the further realization of social and economic rights is largely dependent on the situation - notably financial - reigning in the State in question. On the other hand, the [European] Convention must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and it is designed to safeguard the individual in a real and practical way as regards those areas with which it deals […]. Whilst the Convention sets forth what are essentially civil and political rights, many of them have implications of a social or economic nature. The Court therefore considers, like the Commission, that the mere fact that an interpretation of the Convention may extend into the sphere of social and economic rights should not be a decisive factor against such an interpretation; there is no water-tight division separating that sphere from the field covered by the Convention.86 102. The Tribunal notes that the progressive realization of the economic, social and cultural rights has been the topic of rulings of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, insofar as the full realization of these economic, social and cultural rights “will generally not be able to be achieved in a short period of time” and that, in this way, “it is a necessary flexibility device, reflecting the realities of the real world […] and the difficulties involved for any country in ensuring full realization of economic, social and cultural right.”87 Within the framework of said flexibility as to the term and method, the State shall have, mainly though not exclusively, an obligation to do, that is, to adopt provisions and provide the means and elements necessary to respond to the requirement for effectiveness of the rights in question, within the scope of the economic and finance resources the State has at its disposal to comply with the corresponding international commitment made.88 Hence, the progressive implementation of said measures may be subjected to accountability and, if applicable, compliance with the respective commitment assumed by the State may be demanded before instances called to decide on possible human rights violations. 103. In correlation with the foregoing, there is a duty- though conditionedof not adopting retrogressive steps, which shall not be always understood as a prohibition to adopt measures that restrict the exercise of a right. In this way, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concluded that “any deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights of the [International] Covenant [on Economic, Social and Cultural Right] and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources [of 86 ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, Judgment of 9 October 1979, Serie A, no. 32, para. 26. 87 United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment Nº 3: The nature of States parties' obligations (paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Covenant), U.N. Doc.E/1991/23, Fifth Period of Sessions (1990). 9. 88 The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has indicated that: “in considering a communication concerning an alleged failure of a State party to take steps to the maximum of available resources, […] will examine the measures that the State party has effectively taken, legislative or otherwise. In assessing whether they are “adequate” or “reasonable”, the Committee may take into account, inter alia, the following considerations: a) [t]he extent to which the measures taken were deliberate, concrete and targeted towards the fulfillment of economic, social and cultural rights; b) [w]hether the State party exercised its discretion in a non-discriminatory and nonarbitrary manner; c) [w]hether the State party’s decision (not) to allocate available resources was in accordance with international human rights standards; d) [w]here several policy options are available, whether the State party adopted the option that least restricted Covenant rights; e) [t]the time frame in which the steps were taken[; and] f) [w]hether the steps had taken into account the precarious situation of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals or groups and, whether they were nondiscriminatory, and whether they prioritized grave situations or situations or risk”. United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Declaration on the "Evaluation of the obligation to take steps to the "Maximum of available resources" under an Optional Protocol to the Covenant”, E/C.12/2007/1, 38º Period of Sessions, September 21, 2007, para. 8.