142. The Court has also determined that, in the context of this flexibility regarding the realization time frame and methods, the State has essentially, although not exclusively, an obligation to act; in other words, an obligation to take measures and provide the necessary means and elements to respond to the requirements for the realization of the rights involved, always to the extent permitted by the economic and financial resources available to comply with its respective international commitment.168 Thus, the progressive implementation of the said measures may be subject to accountability and, if appropriate, compliance with the respective commitment assumed by the State may be claimed before the courts called on the decide eventual human rights violations.169 143. In correlation to the above, the Court has considered that it revealed an obligation – although a conditioned obligation – of non-retrogressivity, which should not always be understood as a prohibition of measures that restrict the exercise of a right. In this regard, the Court referred to the opinion of the CESCR 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 provided for in the [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources.”170 Similarly, the Inter-American Commission has considered that to evaluate whether a retrogressive measure is compatible with the American Convention, it is necessary “to determine whether it is justified by reasons of sufficient importance.”171 Based on the foregoing, it can be asserted that this aspect of the principle of progressivity is justiciable when economic, social, cultural and environmental rights are involved. B.4.1.2. Analysis of compliance with the obligation of progressivity prior to 2004 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 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Statement on “An evaluation of the obligation to take steps to the “Maximum of available resources” under an optional protocol to the Covenant,” September 21, 2007, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2007/1, paras. 8 and 9. 168 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. 169 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. 103; 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. According to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “[s]hould a State party use “resource constraints” as an explanation for any retrogressive steps taken, the Committee would consider such information on a country-bycountry basis in the light of objective criteria such as: (a) The country’s level of development; (b) The severity of the alleged breach, in particular whether the situation concerned the enjoyment of the minimum core content of the Covenant; (c) The country’s current economic situation, in particular whether the country was undergoing a period of economic recession; (d) The existence of other serious claims on the State party’s limited resources; for example, resulting from a recent natural disaster or from recent internal or international armed conflict; (e) Whether the State party had sought to identify low-cost options; and (f) Whether the State party had sought cooperation and assistance or rejected offers of resources from the international community for the purposes of implementing the provisions of the Covenant without sufficient reason.” Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Statement on “An evaluation of the obligation to take steps to the “maximum of available resources” under an optional protocol to the Covenant,” September 21, 2007, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2007/1, para. 10. 170 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. 103, Admissibility and Merits Report No. 38/09, Case 12,670, National Association of Former Employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al. v. Peru, issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on March 27, 2009, paras. 140 to 147. 171 50