A/HRC/13/33/Add.4 protection and progressive realization of the right to food and nutritional security”. The Special Rapporteur welcomes this institutionalized role for the Ombudsman in monitoring implementation of the SINASAN law as an innovative and effective means of ensuring accountability for the realization of the right to food. 62. In August 2008 and March 2009 respectively, the Ombudsman produced two reports on the right to food with recommendations to improve implementation of the SINASAN law in accordance with the above-mentioned provision. During the visit of the Special Rapporteur the Ombudsman expressed regret that the recommendations contained in these reports have not been followed up. While the capacity of COPREDEH to monitor overall follow-up by the executive branch of recommendations made by the Ombudsman appears to have been strengthened under the current administration, institutionalized mechanisms to ensure appropriate discussion and corrective measures on the basis of the Ombudsman’s recommendations on the implementation of the SINASAN law should be given more consideration. 63. In addition, a 20 per cent reduction in the Ombudsman’s budget was announced at the time of the mission. The Special Rapporteur is worried that this might affect the ability of the Ombudsman to report consistently and in a timely manner on the realization of the right to food as required by the SINASAN law, as well as to continue other relevant initiatives, such as the development of indicators for monitoring and evaluation. 64. Litigation on issues related to the right to food has been limited to cases brought before the Constitutional Court under the amparo procedure, challenging the compatibility with fundamental rights of regulations of a general nature or acts of the State. A recent example of the latter is the case launched by the Ombudsman before the Constitutional Court on 19 August 2009 in the context of the malnutrition crisis in the corredor seco, as discussed above. The Ombudsman brought this case against CONASAN and SESAN, arguing that their failure to intervene decisively in the malnutrition crisis amounts to a violation of rights enshrined in the Constitution and international human rights mechanisms, as well as in the SINASAN law. 65. On 24 August 2009, a civil court of first instance (Juzgado Cuarto de Primera Instancia Civil) determined that the right to life, health, food and nutrition security, peace and the integral development of the human person had been violated, as well as the principle of precedence of international human rights treaties over domestic law. It ordered the concerned authorities to fulfil their obligations in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations.53 The Special Rapporteur welcomes this development. The improved legal protection of rights enshrined in the Constitution and in the SINASAN law through such litigation is a means to ensure accountability for the implementation of the right to food in Guatemala. VII. The obligation to fulfil the right to food (provide) 66. The second aspect of the obligation to fulfil the right to food concerns the direct provision of food and related necessities whenever an individual or group is unable to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal. This includes the establishment of appropriate social programmes, the distribution of food aid in emergency situations and overall disaster management. 53 Procurador de los derechos humanos, “Informe al relator especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho a la alimentación”, September 2009, pp. 6-9. 17