imposes on the State that it makes a convincing case that, even by calling upon international support, it is unable to finance what it would take to deliver even that "essential content" of the right. Should be State fail to make that case, it will be presumed that it has not been complying with its obligations to prioritize the fulfilment of economic and social rights under its jurisdiction. In that sense, reliance on the "core content" of a right introduces a baseline that is less dependent on the degree of realization of the right that is already attained in any particular State.55 It also helps defining priorities both for domestic efforts towards the fulfilment of human rights obligations, and for international assistance and cooperation.56 It does not, however, allow to dispense completely with considerations related to resource availability: the presumption that is established is relative, not absolute. Secondly, how this "minimum essential content" of the Covenant rights is to be determined remains contested. Because article 11 of the Covenant refers in paragraph 2 to "the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger", in addition to its more general reference in paragraph 1 to "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions", the Committee could easily define the core obligation corresponding to the right to food as an obligation to "take the necessary action to mitigate and alleviate hunger".57 Perhaps this underestimated the complexity of the task; but it had the advantage, at least, of being clearly linked to the text of the Covenant itself. Not all rights allow for such an easy identification of the "core content", however. As regards the right to education guaranteed under article 13 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that "this core includes an obligation: to ensure the right of access to public educational institutions and programmes on a non-discriminatory basis; to ensure that education conforms to the objectives set out in article 13 (1); to provide primary education for all in accordance with article 13 (2) (a) [which provides that primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all]; to adopt and implement a national educational strategy which includes provision for secondary, higher and fundamental education; and to ensure free choice of education without interference from the State or third parties, subject to conformity with “minimum educational standards” (art. 13 (3) and (4))".58 In its General Comment No. 14 on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the Committee provides the following description of "core obligations" corresponding to this right : More recently, the Committee confirmed its view that resource availability remains relevant even as regards the satisfaction of the "core content" of rights: see General Comment No. 12 (1999): The right to food, para. 17: "Should a State party argue that resource constraints make it impossible to provide access to food for those who are unable by themselves to secure such access, the State has to demonstrate that every effort has been made to use all the resources at its disposal in an effort to satisfy, as a matter of priority, those minimum obligations"; or Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Statement on an Evaluation of the Obligations to Take Steps to the ‘Maximum Available Resources’ under an Optional Protocol to the Covenant (Thirty-eighth session, 2007) (E/C12/2007/1), para. 6: "As regards the core obligations of States parties in relation to each of the Covenant rights, General Comment No. 3 states that, in order for a State party to be able to attribute its failure to meet its core obligations to a lack of available resources, it must demonstrate that every effort has been made to use all resources that are at its disposal in an effort to satisfy, as a matter of priority, those core obligations." 55 As noted by Robertson: "...there is an assumption, though a rebuttable one in the eyes of the Committee, that every state possesses sufficient resources for subsistence purposes if they define resources broadly enough and are sufficiently aggressive in resource acquisition" (Robertson, "Measuring State Compliance with the Obligation to Devote the 'Maximum Available Resources' to Realizing Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", cited above note 2, at 702). 56 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has referred to an obligation to prioritise the core obligations aimed at ensuring the minimum essential levels of rights in the context of international cooperation, stating that: "[C]ore human rights obligations create national obligations for all States, and international responsibilities for developed States, as well as others that are in a “position to assist”" (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2001) (E/C.12/2001/10), para. 16): "When grouped together", the Committee added, "the core obligations establish an international minimum threshold that all developmental policies should be designed to respect [...] [The duty of international assistance and cooperation] is particularly incumbent on all [the States] who can assist, to help developing countries respect this international minimum threshold. If a national or international anti-poverty strategy does not reflect this minimum threshold, it is inconsistent with the legally binding obligations of the State party" (id., para. 17). On international duties of assistance and cooperation, see further below, text corresponding to notes 151-170. 57 General Comment No. 12 (1999), cited above note 28, para. 6. See also id., para. 14 ("Every State is obliged to ensure for everyone under its jurisdiction access to the minimum essential food which is sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe, to ensure their freedom from hunger"), and para. 17 ("Violations of the Covenant occur when a State fails to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, the minimum essential level required to be free from hunger"). 58 General Comment No. 13 (1999), cited above note 31, para. 57. 12