It is, however, a violation not capable of producing direct effects to the benefit of individuals, although the instrument certifying it – namely the concluding observation or recommendation of the CESCR – may nonetheless be filed before a domestic judge, in order to persuade him or her to adopt, for example, in the presence of serious and specific circumstances, an urgent measure that instantaneously – albeit provisionally – remedies an unacceptable situation, caused also by an international wrongful act.62 At the level of constitutional case‑law, it is worth recalling the decision of the Colombian Constitutional Court that interpreted certain constitutional provisions in the light of the ICESCR. According to the Colombian Court, citizens holding land subject to a public expropriation by the public administration must be recognised the right to a dignified existence, which includes the State’s obligation to provide sufficient and adequate food.63 At the level of indirect justiciability, the Italian Constitutional Court configures a true “right to obtain the indispensable benefits to alleviate situations of extreme need, in particular alimentary need”, while simultaneously affirming “the State’s duty to establish the qualitative and quantitative characteristics thereof, where the absence of such a framework could prejudice it.”64 As is evident, problems linked to poverty (in general) and to alimentation (in particular) are relevant as an implicit constitutional right to be freed from hunger. In the Italian Constitution, such a right finds its foundation in Articles 2 (the inviolable rights of man and the non‑derogable duty of political, economic and social solidarity), 3 (the principle of equality, which implies the right to equal dignity and to formal and substantive equality of – and among – persons), 36 (the right to remuneration sufficient to ensure for the worker and his family a free and dignified existence) and 38 (the right to social assistance and to means adequate to the needs of life for those unable to work and lacking such means). And all of this irrespective of cultural differences and of the social sphere to which the individuals concerned belong.65 From this perspective, it is very interesting to recall certain rulings of the German Federal Constitutional Court which, on the basis of the combined provisions of Article 20, par. 1 (on the social State) of the German Basic Law 62 See G. Di Giovanni, L’entrata in vigore del Protocollo facoltativo, cit., p. 57. 63 Corte Constitucional, Repùblica de Colombia, 22 January 2004, Acción de tutela instaurada por Abel Antonio Jaramillo y otros, T-025/04. On such decision see F. Alicino, Il diritto al cibo, cit., p. 10. 64 Corte costituzionale, judgement 15 January 2010, No. 10, ground 6.4. Our translation. Emphasis added. 65 F. Alicino, Il diritto al cibo, cit., p. 12. See also G. Napolitano, Acqua e cibo, cit., p. 301. 442 FRANCESCO GASPARI | LUIGI CAMERIERO
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==