2. the national human rights institution mandate subject to progressive realization. NHRIs can use the complaint handling mechanism to monitor the progressive realization of reproductive rights. Complaints can indicate the government’s failure to take determined steps (such as establishing benchmarks and targets), retrogression, discriminatory measures and failure to use maximum available resources. On the other hand, total lack of complaints concerning reproductive rights can be a symptom that the general population is not aware of their rights or of the right to complain. If the NHRI in question is not used to dealing with rights subject to progressive realization (which is the case for most of the rights protected by International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), complaints concerning the right to sexual and reproductive health might be difficult to handle. The principle is set out in Article 2.1 of the Covenant, according to which each state party “undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures”. General Comment 3 (1990) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights clarified the meaning of progressive realization. Accordingly, states are obliged to “move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards [full realization]. Moreover, any deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justifi ed by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources”. The General Comment also refers to minimum core obligations that must in any event be provided; this includes, among other, essential primary health care, the provision of essential drugs (including medicines related to reproductive health and essential contraceptive commodities) and the provision of reproductive maternal and child health care. Another difficulty that would seem mainly to be relevant in cases concerning lack of provision of medical services is that certain cases will hinge on very technical medical evaluations. For this reason the Portuguese NHRI declines to handle cases concerning alleged lack of proper medical attention leading to maternal and/or infant mortality and rather refers such cases to authorities considered more proper. It could be argued that courts are also not equipped with medical knowledge and still have to deal with complex issues of medical errors and other cases of similar complexity. Rather than simply declining to consider such issues, NHRIs should consider ways in which to get sufficient information to handle such cases. This could involve obtaining affidavits from relevant experts or hearing expert witnesses, in a manner similar to the actions of a court, and then, just like a court would do, make a legal, human rights and evidence-based assessment. A NHRI can only be an effective route to justice in individual cases if the general population is aware of the possibility to submit complaints to it. Information on how to exercise these mechanisms should be an important component of broad campaigns on reproductive rights. 73