human rights impact assessments for austerity measures and conduct comprehensive assessments of the cumulative impact these measures have on disadvantaged and marginalised groups’ enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. In reviewing the UK’s report, the CESCR expressed concern regarding regressive tax measures, such as increasing VAT and gradually reducing corporate income tax. The CESCR considered that these measures impacted the state’s ability to collect sufficient resources to achieve a full realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the state’s ability to address persistent inequality.302 Consequently, it calls on the state to conduct a human rights impact assessment of the changes that the fiscal policy introduces, ‘including an analysis of the distributional consequences and the tax burden of different income sectors and marginalised and disadvantaged groups’.303 Thus, the compatibility of austerity measures with human rights will depend partly on whether the state has sought revenue-raising alternatives before making cuts in areas that are important for ensuring the guarantee of economic, social and cultural rights, such as public sector employment, public services or social protection.304 Then, states should take measures to ensure that austerity measures do not deprive the enjoyment of their rights to disadvantaged and marginalised individuals or groups.305 Instead of adopting fiscal consolidation measures, some special procedures have recommended states undertake counter-cyclical measures (eg, fiscal stimulus packages and social-protection interventions) as a means of mitigating some of the most severe impediments to guaranteeing human rights, particularly for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, and leveraging a more rapid recovery from an economic crisis.306 Directly related to resource mobilisation, some special rapporteurs, including the Independent Expert on a democratic and equitable international order, have suggested that, to ensure the maximum use of available resources for the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, consideration should also be given to reprioritising spending on social sectors (eg, education and health) over military spending.307 This would be in line with the obligation to accord a degree of priority to human rights in resources allocation (see section 2.2 above). 302 Concluding Observations UK E/C.12/GBR/CO/6 (2016), para 16. In 2015, it made similar recommendations to Greece and Italy. 303 Concluding Observations UK E/C.12/GBR/CO/6, para 17. 304 See, eg, ‘Report of the Independent Expert on poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona’ on the human rights based approach to recovery from the global economic and financial crises, with a focus on those living in poverty (2011) UN Doc A/HRC/17/34. 305 CESCR, Concluding Observations Italy E/C.12/ITA/CO/5 (2015). 306 ‘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, para 30. See also ‘Report of the Independent Expert on poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona’ (2011) A/HRC/17/34 (human rights-based approach to recovery). 307 See, eg, ‘Report of the Independent Expert on international order, Alfred de Zayas’ (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/27/51, para 45; ‘Report of the Independent Expert on poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona’ (2011) A/HRC/17/34, para 81. December 2017   The Obligation to Mobilise Resources: Bridging Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Economic and Fiscal Policies 77