Chapter 2 | Page 53 focus on the outcomes of ESC rights realisation would make a better case for State obligations. The distinction between obligations of conduct and result also imply differences in the mechanisms for monitoring State compliance with these two obligations. In the case of ESC rights to health and education, for example, the level of State compliance with obligation of conduct includes the provision of programmes that directly improve the quality of and access to education and health services. Such compliance can be compared with the obligation of results, which includes the level of State efforts to guarantee these rights by providing appropriate opportunities for individuals to enjoy them. As previously noted, ESC rights form an essential part of the international human rights system, which lays down obligations on the States to respect, protect and fulfil the rights and to ensure that the legal, administrative, economic, and social conditions necessary for the realisation of these rights are put in place. Moreover, the international human rights regime recognises that all human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated,30 therefore ESC rights require the same level of attention in State policy. As the primary duty-bearer, the State is expected to incorporate these human rights obligations into policy and to actively engage in their implementation to ensure the widest possible enjoyment of these rights. 2.3 GENERAL AND SUBSTANTIVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ICESCR Human rights scholars categorise the obligations derived from the ICESCR as ‘rights-based obligations’, ‘procedural obligations’ and ‘general or basic obligations’.31 General or basic obligations, outlined in Part II of the Covenant are not directly related to specific rights but are concerned with the manner in 30 United Nations General Assembly, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc A/CONF.157/23 (12 July 1993), action 5. 31 See for example, Sepúlveda, above n 13, 16.