A/HRC/17/34 austerity measures, it is clear that, in many instances, these reductions in expenditure could have grave consequences for the enjoyment of human rights, particularly for those living in poverty who continue to suffer from the cumulative effects of the crises. 37. Human rights do not dictate what policy measures States should take. States have the discretion to select and take policy measures according to their specific economic, social and political circumstances. The choice of policy measures must, however, comply with the State’s human rights obligations. Human rights are not a policy option, dispensable during times of economic hardship. While a human rights response does not purport to stipulate a particular economic system or financial measures, it nevertheless provides a clear legal framework for the design and implementation of all policies, including economic and fiscal policy. V. Some recovery measures and their potential threat to the realization of human rights 38. The occurrence of economic crises does not exempt States from complying with their human rights commitments, nor does it entitle them to prioritize other issues over the realization of human rights. Rather, it is during crises and their aftermath that the necessity of State conformity with human rights obligations comes into sharp relief. It is precisely when increasing numbers of people are being pushed into extreme poverty and the livelihood of vulnerable groups is being threatened that the protection provided by human rights is most vital. In this regard, it is imperative that social spending and service delivery is adequate to support vulnerable populations and help them overcome the devastating impact of the crises on their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. 39. The section below looks through a human rights lens at some of the specific measures that States are designing and implementing, and highlights the ways in which they may pose a threat to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights of the most vulnerable sectors of societies. A. Eroding social protection systems 40. In order to avert the worst effects of the crises, and drawing from the experience of previous crises in which social protection systems played an important role, many low- and mid-income countries have allocated significant percentages of their stimulus packages to social protection initiatives.22 41. In those countries in which social protection schemes were already in place, protected by legislative or constitutional measures and constructed in accordance with a human rights framework, individuals and households most at risk of economic hardship were able to rely on social protection mechanisms to mitigate the social and economic effects of the crises and thus enjoyed stronger protection of their rights. This was the case in a number of Latin American countries that have well-developed and supported social protection systems. Where no adequate pre-existing social protection mechanisms were in place, States’ investments in social protection were less able to respond to the effects of the economic downturn, although they still provided an important form of support to those most affected by the crises. 22 10 Ortiz and others, “Prioritising Expenditures”, p. 4.