However, regardless of the closing of a country`s proceedings, judges acted in the „interest of justice” to proactively protect rights. One example among many is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of fiji, in which the right to food of a prisoner described in Chapter 4 is discussed.  In this case, the Court decided to go beyond the party`s arguments and take a proactive position to defend the provisions of the rights that were not invoked by the aggrieved party. In its decision, the Court stated that it „would not take into account the applicant`s concession because, as it is rightly, unable to assess the constitutional issues concerning Sections 25 and 28 of the Constitution. These issues require some attention in the interests of justice.  In some cases, courts that have dealt very actively with CSE rights issues have been politically challenged and criticized by the government. The Hungarian Constitutional Court, for example, which was proactive, has been criticized by some commentators for its „redivivus socialism”. This also led the government to appoint new judges in 1998, who sympathized with Prime Minister Viktor Orben.  Similarly, it has been criticized that the judicial efforts of the Colombian Constitutional Court to effectively protect the rights of the ESC, guaranteed by the Constitution, have violated the principle of separation of powers by ensolating the implementation of public policies and the allocation of resources.  The situation in India is an exemplary case in this regard.
 The development of public interest litigation and the general relaxation of procedural rules have been a determining factor in the ability to obtain court injunctions to address massive violations of ESC rights. In particular, the Supreme Court of Constitutional Appeals Against Rights Violations has accepted complaints that have been brought to its attention in a largely non-formalistic manner. In addition, public interest disputes allow the court to act suo moto (on its own initiative) and judicial review of a situation of alleged violation may be introduced on behalf of the victims or without a party confiscating the court. Any person or NGO can play an active role in requiring, in the public interest, verification of the omissions or actions of the state and reparation if they violate constitutional rights.  These examples of progressive procedural reforms can be used by practitioners to promote judicial and administrative authorities in countries where access to the procedure continues to impede the role of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in protecting the rights of the ESC. As noted in Chapter 2, Section II.1, the provision of effective remedies is a connective obligation of the state with respect to material law obligations under international human rights law, and the authorities that manage the judicial system should play their part in ensuring effective compliance with this obligation. In Morocco, for example, the Ombudsman takes into account complaints from individuals about relevant issues concerning the rights of the NTE Security Council, such as public housing. B, the provision of public water services and the services of public sector workers. In addition to his duties in the area of general recommendations and supervision, the Ombudsman can offer mediation, advise alleged victims and refer cases to the appropriate judicial authorities.  In many countries, mediators and national human rights institutions can play a key role in accessing justice for victims of ESC rights violations. It is, of course, necessary for these institutions to benefit from the necessary material and human capacities and the necessary independence.  Because of their nature and function, these institutions often provide support to individuals who accuse public authorities of violations of their rights and can help them bring legal action.