Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

Not at all. Amnesty International is not here to be a cheerleader for any particular state and for the approach it adopts but if we look at the role the constitutional court has played when it has been asked to adjudicate on ESC rights issues, whether housing or health rights, one sees the outcomes for people, for effective policy-making and for service delivery have been incredibly positive. That is not, in any way, to take away from the very significant rights issues that still exist in South Africa, including economic, social and cultural rights issues. Flagging South Africa as an example is to flag a constitutional model that has been able to work from a judicial perspective - a court perspective - and which has demonstrated an ability to deal with incredibly complex issues from very broad issues such as the supply of antiretroviral drugs to combat HIV to very specific issues such as a case taken by an individual who felt he was being denied his right to health because he could not access dialysis. The court made a challenging but really thoughtful decision to say that it is reasonable for the State not to provide a health service to this individual on the basis of likely outcome for the individual and scarce resources and that it had an obligation to consider, and it was reasonable for the State to consider, the broad needs that existed and that might mean that an individual case's specific needs were not addressed. We flagged the legal process in South Africa as a really solid example of how courts can address these issues without it leading to separation of powers issues for states.