A/69/299 22. Sufficient resources available to a State should, however, be allocated to achieve the realization of other economic, social and cultural rights, in addition to the plethora of competing demands on the State. When considering allocation to other competing economic, social and cultural obligations, those of an immediate or core nature should take precedence. Available resources should imply the maximum amount of resources that can be allocated to a specific health objective without compromising other essential services. 11 23. Although what constitutes available resources will differ by context, the term requires elaboration in order to guide States and assist adjudicators in deciding whether the amount of available resources proffered by States is acceptable. Even if adjudicators do not give directions with regard to the allocation and use of resources, they should closely scrutinize the State’s view of the amount of maximum resources available to them, given that it is the Government ’s burden to demonstrate that the amount of its available resources does not permit the fulfilment of some State obligations. This may require adjudicators to scrutinize the budget to determine whether the allocation to the health sector or to a particular health goal is inadequate. A State’s decreasing budgetary allocation for its right to health obligations vis-à-vis its increasing gross domestic product or increasing allocation to areas other than those relating to human rights may be evidence that the State has chosen not to allocate available resources to fulfil t hat right, which may evidence a breach of its progressively realizable obligations. 11 Adjudicators should also inquire as to whether the State has sufficiently exerted itself in obtaining international aid or developing societal resources to expand the amount of resources available. States should be obliged to provide information regarding the calculation of their available resources, budget allocations and efforts to increase the available resources in an open and transparent manner to facilitate a full and fair review by the adjudicator. 24. Where a progressively realizable obligation has a core component, adjudicators should inquire as to whether the State has fulfilled its obligation in that regard. When such rights have not been safeguarded, courts have found violations of the relevant right without even delving into an analysis of a State ’s available resources. For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights noted that the State obligation to guarantee access to a decent life must be read in view of the State’s progressively realizable obligations set forth in article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 13 However, the Court did not use the concept of progressive realization to qualify the obligation of the State to provide minimum living conditions that were compatible with the dignity of the human person, but rather found that the State had breached the claimants’ right to life and was required to provide, inter alia, medicine, food, clean water and sanitation facilities. 14 Thus, in accordance with the core obligations under the right to health framework, where adjudicators determine that certain fundamental human rights have been violated, they may find that the State has breached its relevant obligations without delving into the question of whether the State had the available resources to satisfy such obligations. 15 __________________ 13 14 15 8/22 Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, judgement of 17 June 2005, para. 163. Ibid., paras. 176 and 221. See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, judgement of 29 March 2006; Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, judgement of 4 July 2006. 14-59014