NGCOBO J [101] This case presents a novel question in the context of socio-economic rights. In the past this Court has been called upon to evaluate programmes that the state has put in place in order to determine whether they comply with the Constitution.10 In this case, the state has put in place a scheme for social welfare assistance to meet its obligations under the Constitution. The contents of the scheme are not in issue. The only complaint is that access to the benefits system is limited to citizens only. We are therefore not concerned with what should be made available to those in need but with who among the needy should receive the social welfare benefits. The problem of the governing constitutional provisions [102] Two interesting and difficult questions arise. The first is conceptual: which provisions of the Constitution should govern the constitutional challenge “Everyone has the right to life.” 9 Section 28 provides: “(1) (2) (3) Every child has the right— (a) ... (b) to family care or parental care, or to appropriate alternative care when removed from the family environment; (c) to basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care services and social services; (d) to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation; (e) to be protected from exploitative labour practices; ... A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. In this section “child” means a person under the age of 18 years.” 10 See Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC); 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC); Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others (2), 2002 (5) SA 721; 2002 (10) BCLR 1033 (CC). 66