A/HRC/28/59/Add.1 managed to spread the message that, during the crisis, the weakest in society should be protected. The watchdog submitted several reports with recommendations to the Government, as well as one to the Parliament. In 2015, it is expected to put forward additional recommendations on how to address and guarantee the rights of persons suffering multiple forms of deprivation. The Independent Expert hopes that its expert advice will be duly considered by the Icelandic authorities. C. Taxation and the distribution of losses 35. Iceland’s adjustment programme strongly emphasized increasing revenue generation through taxation, while focusing to a lesser extent on public expenditure cuts. The reintroduction of a progressive income tax system helped to shelter the most vulnerable groups from the effects of the crisis. In addition, the flat tax on capital income was increased and a wealth tax was temporarily introduced to generate revenue. The only regressive tax measure was a one per cent increase in the value added tax from 24.5 to 25.5 per cent. On the whole, social benefits were directed to lower-income households, mainly by cutting maternal and parental leave entitlements. Disposable income fell across the entire society. The poorest 20 per cent of the population in Iceland lost around 9 per cent of their disposable income between 2008 and 2010. In contrast, 10 per cent of the wealthiest households that had accumulated assets during the boom years of the bubble economy lost 38 per cent of their income. Social transfers and taxation policies reduced inequality in Iceland significantly. They also helped to stabilize internal demand, as the citizens with lower incomes spent a much higher percentage of their funds on goods and services.21 D. Special Investigative Commission of the Parliament 36. In December 2008, the Icelandic Parliament set up a Special Investigation Commission to investigate and analyse the processes leading to the collapse of the three main commercial banks. The Commission is co-chaired by a Supreme Court judge, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and an academic expert. The Commission submitted a detailed report to Parliament in April 2012 in which it outlined the responsibilities of entities and individuals, including bankers, politicians and governmental officials in charge of supervising the financial and monetary systems. From December 2009 to September 2010, a Parliamentary Review Committee scrutinized the report. 37. On 28 September 2010, the Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution providing for the review of existing legislation, including the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland, Act No. 4/1963 on Ministerial Responsibility and legislation relating to financial markets and their operations. The Independent Expert notes that, while some of the abovementioned legislation has already been reviewed and revised, to date, many of the laws have not yet been amended in order to prevent the recurrence of a similar crisis. 38. On 28 September 2010, Parliament also adopted a resolution to initiate legal proceedings against the former Prime Minister, Geir Haarde, before the High Court of Impeachment. Resolutions against three other ministers failed to receive a sufficient 21 See Stefán Ólafsson, “The Icelandic way out of the crisis: Welfarism, redistribution and austerity”, Social Research Centre, University of Iceland, Working Paper No. 1 (2012); and Bruno Martorano, “Is it possible to adjust ‘with a human face’? Differences in fiscal consolidation strategies between Hungary and Iceland”, UNICEF, Office of Research Working Paper, WP-2014-No. 03 (May 2014). 13