15. The Constitutional Court of Colombia (hereinafter “the CCC”) is an important source in relation to developments on the scope of progressivity. On this point, the CCC has understood that social benefit content is not for immediate application, but is subject to the principle of progressivity, and that, under the rule of law, court decisions are not sufficient; rather the construction of rights within the democratic process calls for both a legal and a budgetary framework.43 According to the CCC, the principle of progressivity has at least three specific consequences for the effects of the judicial enforceability of the social rights: (i) the existence of a public policy aimed at the effective enjoyment of the rights; (ii) if the public policy exists, that its content is protected by means of a judicial remedy, and (iii) the limitation of the discretionary powers of the authority to implement retrogressive measures.44 16. Furthermore, the CCC has indicated that a measure is understood to be retrogressive when: (i) the substantive sphere of protection of the right in question is reduced or limited; (ii) it substantially increases the requirements to access the respective right, and (iii) when it significantly reduces or diverts the public resources allocated to satisfying it. 45 It has also considered that the judgment should be especially strict when the retrogressive measure affects the social rights of people or groups who have special protection owing to their situation of marginalization or vulnerability. 46 In this way, the CCC has indicated that, when a retrogressive measure is subject to constitutional control, it is for the State to prove with sufficient and pertinent information: (i) that the measure seeks to meet the peremptory constitutional purpose; (ii) that, following prudent assessment, it is demonstrated that the measure is truly conducive to achieving the objective sought; (iii) that, following an analysis of the different alternatives, the measure appears necessary to achieve the proposed purpose; (iv) that it does not affect the unavailable minimum content of the social right in question, and (v) that the benefit achieved is clearly superior to the cost involved. 47 In addition to these conditions, the CCC has recently determined that, in order to implement a retrogressive measure, it is necessary: (vi) to identify the constitutionality of the measure, and (vii) to consider the inclusion of a deliberative procedure in which the sectors affected by the retrogression are included, even when the measure is issued by an administrative authority.48 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia. Judgment T-302/2017, Rapporteur: Justice Aquiles Arrieta Gómez, May 8, 2017, paragraph 8.1.5. 43 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia. Judgment T-302/2017, Rapporteur: Justice Aquiles Arrieta Gómez, May 8, 2017, paragraphs 8.1.6., 8.1.7. and 8.1.8. 44 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-313/14, Rapporteur: Justice Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo. Judgment of May 29, 2014, pp. 7 and 8, and Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-556/09, Rapporteur: Justice Nilson Pinilla Pinilla. Judgment of August 20, 2009. 45 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-991 of 2004. Rapporteur: Justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. Judgment of October 12, 2004. 46 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C -313/14, Rapporteur: Justice Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, May 29, 2014. See, similarly: Cf. Judgment C-1064/01, Rapporteurs: Justices Manuel José Cepeda Esponisa and Jaime Cordova Triviño, October 10, 2001; Cf. Judgment C-671/02, Rapporteur: Justice Eduardo Montealegre Lynett, August 20, 2002 and Cf. Judgment C-931/04, Rapporteur: Justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, September 29, 2004. 47 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia. Judgment T-302/2017, Rapporteur: Justice Aquiles Arrieta Gómez, May 8, 2017, paragraphs 8.1.9., 8.1.10., 8.1.11. and 8.1.12. 48 8