A/HRC/24/44 (g) criteria.34 The State has the burden of proof regarding compliance with the above 16. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has addressed retrogression mainly in the context of decisions by States to adopt austerity measures that may have a negative impact on the realization of human rights.35 Hence, its focus has been on criticizing measures that are deliberately retrogressive.36 However, in line with the scope of her report, which examines not only times of crisis, but also broader challenges of ensuring sustainability in times of economic growth, the Special Rapporteur considers it necessary to look at retrogression more broadly. Even if not deliberately regressive, some State acts, as well as omissions, may have a retrogressive effect. Where States fail to ensure adequate operation and maintenance, where they fail to implement adequate mechanisms for regulation, monitoring and sector oversight, or where they fail to build and strengthen their capacity in the long term, the result may be unsustainable interventions that lead to slippages in access to water and sanitation and retrogression in the realization of the human rights to water and sanitation. While such retrogression cannot always be avoided, the human rights framework puts forward certain requirements for States even where retrogression is non-deliberate: States must act with care and deliberation, exercise due diligence to assess the impacts of their actions and omissions on the realization of human rights, and adjust their policies and measures as soon as they become aware that current policies might lead to unsustainable results. 17. There is a clear link between non-retrogression and sustainability. Acts or omissions that result in retrogressions in the progressive realization of the rights to water and sanitation jeopardize sustainability. Unless the criteria outlined above have been satisfied during the States’ decision-making processes, it is unlikely that such processes will result in the sustainable provision of water and sanitation. Rather, retrogressive steps will perpetuate unsustainable practices and create a constant threat to the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights in general and the rights to water and sanitation in particular. C. The human rights principle of sustainability 18. Since the 1980s, the international community has repeatedly emphasized that development must be sustainable and must protect the environment on which present and future generations depend. 37 The common definition of “sustainable development” was established in the landmark report of the World Commission on Environment and Development entitled “Our common future” (A/42/427, annex). It underlines striking a balance among three mutually reinforcing dimensions – economic, social and environmental – while “meet[ing] the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (ibid., para. 27). 19. More recent expressions of sustainability continue to recognize these three interdependent dimensions. In the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), entitled “The future we want”, States reaffirmed the need to achieve sustainable development by promoting inclusive and equitable economic growth, promoting respect for all human rights, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion, and promoting the 34 35 36 37 Statement of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: An evaluation of the obligation to take steps to the “maximum of available resources” under an optional protocol to the Covenant (E/CN.12/2007/1), para. 9. See for example E/C.12/ESP/CO/5, para. 8; and E/C.12/ISL/CO/4, para. 6. See general comment No. 19, para. 42. See, for example, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 7