rights recognized by this treaty, and acknowledges the constraints due to the limits of available resources, it also imposes various obligations which are of immediate effect.”73 Likewise, this Committee established that the concept of “progressive realization” constituted a recognition of the fact that full realization of the said rights would be achieved over time. Nevertheless, it also indicated that: the fact that realization over time, or in other words progressively, is foreseen under the Covenant should not be misinterpreted as depriving the obligation of all meaningful content. It is on the one hand 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 rights.74 81. The Court reiterates its case law75 in the sense that the flexibility regarding the time frame and methods for complying with the obligations of progressivity under Article 26 entails, essentially although not exclusively, an obligation to act; that is, to take measures and provide the necessary means and elements to respond to the requirements of the realization of the rights involved, always to the extent permitted by the economic and financial resources available to comply with the respective international commitment. Thus, the progressive implementation of such measures may be subject to accountability and, if appropriate, compliance with the respective commitment made by the State may be claimed before the courts called on to decide eventual human rights violations. 76 B.1.2. Internal context - systematic interpretation 82. Second, the Court finds it pertinent to refer to the context of Article 26 of the Convention. In this regard, the Court underlines that, according to the systematic criterion, norms must be interpreted as part of a whole, the meaning and scope of which must be established based on the legal system to which they belong. 77 In this regard, the Court has considered that, when interpreting a treaty, it should take into account not only the agreements and instruments formally related to it (Article 31.2 of the Vienna Convention), but also the system of which it forms part (Article 31.3); that is, the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.78 When making a systematic interpretation of the Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2, Para. 1, of the Covenant) December 14, 1990, U.N. Doc. E/1991/23, para. 1. 73 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2, Para. 1, of the Covenant) December 14, 1990, U.N. Doc. E/1991/23, para. 9. 74 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 102, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 104. 75 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 102. 76 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 43, and Gender Identity, and Equality and NonDiscrimination with regard to Same-sex Couples (State obligations concerning change of name, gender identity, and rights derived from a relationship between same-sex couples (interpretation and scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in relation to Article 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights).). Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 of November 24, 2017. Series A No. 24, para. 59. 77 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 113, and Entitlement of legal entities to hold rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System (Interpretation and scope of Article 1(2), in relation to Articles 1(2), 8, 11(2), 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46 and 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of Article 8(1)(A) and (B) of the Protocol of San Salvador). Advisory Opinion OC-22/16 of February 26, 2016. Series A No. 22, para. 44. 78 28