In light of current-day inequality levels caused by historic inequality, human rights monitoring bodies have paid substantial attention to the issue, both as a human rights concern in and of itself, and as a cause of other human rights violations.123 In his 2015 report on the subject, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty provided an overview of the world’s widening economic and social inequalities, illustrating how they stifle equal opportunity and lead to laws, regulations and institutions that favour the powerful and perpetuate discrimination against certain groups, such as women.124 The Independent Expert on debt points out ways inequality can adversely impact state revenues.125 Several special procedures have pointed out that states are under a legal obligation to address economic inequalities,126 and treaty bodies often ask states to provide information on specific measures adopted to reduce economic, social and geographical inequalities.127 For example, some special procedures have pointed to an appropriate tax system as one of the most important tools available to governments for addressing income inequality.128 They have also noted that a state with a very narrow tax base or that fails to confront tax evasion may result in its inability to fund social protections or adequate and accessible public services, a situation likely to create or entrench inequalities.129 While tax structures can be a tool for combating inequality, human rights monitoring bodies have noted that, if not carefully designed, they can also perpetuate it. Thus, they have called on policymakers to be aware of the extent to which tax and other revenue-mobilising policies strengthen or break down inequalities or discriminate against different types of households.130 Tax structures can, for example, potentially reduce women’s participation in the labour market, contributing to discrimination, as CEDAW has noted. CEDAW found, for example, that Switzerland’s system of joint taxation for two-income married couples, which bars childcare cost deductions, was an impediment to women’s participation in the labour market.131 This is an instance of discriminatory – and thus human rights-inconsistent – resource mobilisation. 123 See, eg, CESCR: General Comment No 20; Concluding Observations Portugal E/C.12/PRT/CO/4 (2014); Concluding Observations Paraguay E/C.12/PRY/CO/4 (2015); and CRC: Concluding Observations Thailand CRC/C/THA/CO/34 (2012). See also ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Philip Alston’ (2015) UN Doc A/HRC/29/31. 124 ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Philip Alston’ (2015) UN Doc A/HRC/29/31. 125 ‘Report of the Independent Expert on foreign debt, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky’ (2016) UN Doc A/HRC/31/60. 126 See, eg, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Philip Alston’ (2015) UN Doc A/HRC/29/31; ‘Report of the Independent Expert on foreign debt, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky’ (2016) UN Doc A/HRC/31/60. 127 UN, ‘Compilation of guidelines on the form and context of reports to be submitted by States Parties to the international human rights treaties’ (2009) HRI/GEN/2/Rev.6, para 55. 128 See, eg, ‘Report of the Independent Expert on foreign debt, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky’ (2016) UN Doc A/HRC/31/60, para 12; ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona’ (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/26/28. 129 ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona’ (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/26/28, para 17. 130 UNDP, ‘Gender Equality and Poverty Reduction: Taxation’, cited in ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona’ (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/26/28. 131 CEDAW: Concluding Observations Switzerland CEDAW/C/CHE/CO/3 (2009), paras 37–38; Concluding Observations Lebanon CEDAW/C/LBN/CO/3 (2007), paras 32–33; and ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Philip Alston’ (2015) UN Doc A/HRC/29/31. 44 The Obligation to Mobilise Resources: Bridging Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Economic and Fiscal Policies   December 2017