A/72/128 5. Obligation to adopt reasonable measures to realize the right to adequate housing to the maximum of available resources 44. Article 2 (1) of the Convention mirrors the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its provision that each State party shall undertake to take measures to the maximum of its available resources, with a v iew to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights enshrined in those instruments. The reasonableness standard has been incorporated into the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. Courts, treaty bodies and commentators have articulated a standard of “reasonableness” in assessing whether the positive measures taken by States meet the requirements of international human rights law. 39 45. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has identified some indicators of whether a State has satisfied a standard of reasonableness, including: (a) The extent to which the measures taken were deliberate, concrete and targeted towards the fulfilment of the right; (b) Whether resource allocation is in accordance with international human rights standards; (c) Whether the steps were taken within a reasonable time frame; (d) Whether the precarious situation of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals or groups has been addressed; (e) Whether policies have prioritized grave situations or situations of risk; (f) Whether decision-making is transparent and participatory. 40 46. The standard of reasonableness to assess States’ compliance with the obligation to take measures to realize the right to adequate housing for persons with disabilities runs parallel to the similar standard of reasonableness that is applied in the context of the accommodation of the individual needs of persons with disabilities. The former relies on a standard of maximum of available resources to assess programmatic measures to address the systemic needs of persons with disabilities, while the latter relies on a standard of undue or disproportionate burden in relation to the specific measures required in individual cases. In many cases, however, there is no clear divide between individual needs and needs shared with others in the positive measures taken by Governments to ensure access to accessible housing. As Janet E. Lord and Rebecca Brown note, “the obligation to reasonably accommodate the unique needs of persons with disabilities merges with the obligation under the [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] and under the economic, social and cultural rights provisions in the [Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities], to apply the maximum of available resources to realizing the substantive rights in question”. 41 47. For the Special Rapporteur, it is critical that both dimensions of States’ positive obligations be implemented on the basis of a robust standard of reasonableness. That means adopting reasonable measures to address the systemic __________________ 39 40 41 14/23 See Malcom Langford and others, eds., The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Commentary (Pretoria, South Africa, Pretoria University Law Press, 2016). See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, statement on an evaluation of the obligation to take steps to the “maximum of available resources” under an optional protocol to the Covenant, E/C.12/2007/1. Janet E. Lord and Rebecca Brown, “The role of reasonable accommodation in securing substantive equality for persons with disabilities: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”, in Critical Perspectives on Human Rights and Disability Law, Marcia H. Rioux, Lee Ann Basser and Melinda Jones, eds., (Brill Publishers, 2011), p. 279. 17-11724