Shanta gives a friendly but critical nudge to the rights-approach to service provision implying that including such rights in the law or constitution is pretty useless – and perhaps even harmful as it may be interpreted as committing the state to both producing the service and providing it free of charge. However, he will be pleased to learn that the human rights covenants and associated bodies fully agree that putting the service provision in law in only a first step. In fact, state parties to the relevant covenant (here the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) undertake 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 covenant by all appropriate means (public provision not a must) including particularly the adoption of legislative measures. States also undertake to guarantee that the rights will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. How can you argue with that?