• ensure that any conditions attached to loans do not unreasonably reduce their ability to respect, protect and confer ICESCR rights; • take all measures possible to ensure that any negative impacts on the exercise of economic, social and cultural rights are reduced to a bare minimum; and • if the adoption of retrogressive measures is unavoidable, such measures should be necessary and proportionate (ie, ‘in the sense that the adoption of any other policy or failure to act would be more detrimental to economic, social and cultural rights’). ‘They should not result in discrimination; they should mitigate inequalities that can grow in times of crisis and ensure that the rights of disadvantaged and marginalised individuals and groups are not disproportionately affected; and they should not affect the minimum core content of the rights protected under the Covenant.’ Lender states should ensure they do not impose obligations on borrowing states that would lead them to adopt retrogressive measures in violation of their ICESCR obligations. In stronger language, the statement notes that both lending and borrowing states seeking loans with certain conditionalities are required to carry out a human rights impact assessment prior to the loan’s provision, to ensure such conditionalities do not disproportionately impact economic, social and cultural rights, or lead to discrimination. The statement also reiterates international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank’s obligations to comply with human rights as well as states’ obligations as international organisation members. In reviewing states’ reports and country visits, treaty bodies and special procedures have also addressed austerity measures. They have expressed concerns that austerity measures and other structural adjustments have a disproportionately negative impact on women, children, persons with disabilities, older persons, people with HIV/AIDS, ethnic minorities, migrants or the unemployed, often with devastating social consequences.294 They have also applied the aforementioned legal framework to specific country situations, such as those of Iceland,295 Ireland,296 Greece,297 Portugal,298 Slovenia,299 Thailand300 and Ukraine.301 They have particularly emphasised a need to undertake 294 See, eg, ‘Report of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice, Mayra Gomez’ (Discrimination against women in economic and social life, with a focus on economic crisis) (2014) UN Doc A/ HRC/26/39, paras 28 and 114; ‘Report of the Independent Expert on foreign debt, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky’ (Mission to Greece) (2016) A/HRC/31/60/Add.2; ‘Report of the Working Group on business and human rights’ (Visit to the United States of America) (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/26/25/Add.4; ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on housing, Raquel Rolnik’ (Mission to the United States) (2010) UN Doc A/HRC/13/20/Add.4. 295 Concluding Observations Iceland E/C.12/ISL/CO/4 (2012). 296 Concluding Observations Ireland E/C.12/IRL/CO/3 (2015). 297 ‘Report of the Independent Expert on foreign debt, Cephas Lumina’ (Mission to Greece) (2014) A/HRC/25/50/Add.1. 298 Concluding Observations Portugal E/C.12/PRT/CO/4 (2014). 299 Concluding Observations Slovenia E/C.12/SVN/CO/2 (2014). 300 Concluding Observations Thailand CRC/C/THA/CO/3-4 (2012). 301 Concluding Observations Ukraine E/C.12/UKR/CO/6 (2014) 76 The Obligation to Mobilise Resources: Bridging Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Economic and Fiscal Policies   December 2017