It is helpful / necessary to see what guides the Committee uses to interpret the provisions and decide cases if there is not absolute certainty of a breach.
The Preamble to a treaty is useful in ascertaining the purpose of the law, and therefore as a guide as to how it might be interpreted. See the preamble here.
Otherwise, it is often illustrative to consider previous decisions of the committee. While the committee is not obliged to follow their previous decisions, there is fairly high degree of consistency in its decisions.
An example: Autism-Europe v France European Committee of Social Rights 4/11/2002
Facts: The complainant alleged that the French Government had made insufficient
educational provision for autistic persons, thereby violating several provisions of the
Revised European Social Charter, including: the obligation of States Parties to ensure the effective exercise by persons with disabilities of their right to independence, social
integration and participation in the life of the community by taking the necessary measures to provide such persons with education (Article 15.1); the obligation of States Parties to secure the right to education of all children and young persons (Article 17.1); and the non-discrimination principle in the enjoyment of Charter rights (Article E).
Decision: The Committee stated that Article E prohibits both direct discrimination and all forms of indirect discrimination. Referring to its own case law, the Committee
emphasised that States Parties are obliged to take both legal and practical action to give full effect to Charter rights. When the achievement of a right is exceptionally complex and particularly expensive to resolve, State Parties must take measures which allow them to achieve the objectives of the Charter “within a reasonable time with measurable progress and to an extent consistent with the maximum use of available resources.”
The Committee found that the numbers of autistic children being educated in either general or specialist schools were disproportionately low in comparison to other children, and that there was a chronic shortage of care and support facilities for autistic adults. This constituted a violation of Articles 15.1 and 17.1, whether read alone or in conjunction with Article E.