other fundamental rights “on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.” 3.4 Means of Implementation Under ICESCR, the means by which the full realization of rights is achieved is open and broad. Nonetheless, despite this wide scope, the choice of means of implementation is not entirely free of constraints. ICESCR specifies that: Although the precise method by which Covenant rights are given effect in national law is a matter for each State party to decide, the means used should be appropriate in the sense of producing results which are consistent with the full discharge of its obligations by the State party. The means chosen are also subject to review as part of the Committee’s examination of the State party’s compliance with its obligations under the Covenant.38 The CESCR has stated that State Parties must respect the following three principles in deciding on appropriate means of implementation: • • • the means of implementation must be adequate to ensure fulfilment of the obligations under the Covenant; the means of implementation should not differ from those used in relation to other human rights; and the formal incorporation of the ICESCR into national law is not obligatory, but is desirable as it provides a basis for the direct invocation of the ICESCR by individuals in national courts.39 Means of Implementation • Legislation • Judicial or other effective remedies • Other administrative, financial, educational and social measures While the CESCR has emphasized that legislation can be indispensable in the implementation of a number of rights, it has also maintained that State Parties should make use of any other means of implementation appropriate under the circumstances with respect to each right.40 As such, available means may include administrative, financial, educational and social measures.41 To this end, the CESCR has highlighted the importance of providing judicial or other effective remedies for violations of the rights contained in the Covenant, expressing the view that every right included in the Covenant possesses “some significant justiciable dimension.”42 It has therefore rejected the idea that economic, social and cultural rights could be defined as essentially non-justiciable, as this would go against the principles of the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and prevent courts from effectively protecting the rights of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society.43 In particular, the CESCR has pointed to a number of provisions in the Covenant which it deems to be entirely justiciable: Articles 3, 7(a)(i), 8, 10(3), 13(2)(a), (3) and (4), and 15(3).44 The justiciability of these provisions arises from their expression in compulsory terms as well as the fact that many of them are similar in nature to civil and political rights, relating to the 18