A/66/265 democratic society”.8 Permissible limitations must also comply with general principles of human rights law, and must thus be non-discriminatory, reasonable and proportionate.9 Compliance with these principles requires, for example, that any restrictive measures must be appropriate means of achieving the aims pursued, and that limitations must not be more severe than is necessary for the attainment of the aim sought. 20. Considering that the primary objective of the human rights framework is to protect the rights of individuals rather than permit the imposition of limitations by the State, States have the burden of demonstrating that the restrictions imposed on the exercise of rights by those living in poverty comply with all these criteria and are therefore legitimate, reasonable and proportionate to the aim sought. Restrictions that are not in conformity with these criteria constitute a violation of human rights norms. 21. States often draw on the enumerated permissible limitations to justify the adoption of penalization measures. However, in practice, penalization measures are motivated by a combination of factors. Some measures aim to remove any image of poverty, such as the removal of homeless persons and beggars from urban centres, in order to beautify the city and attract investment and development. Other measures are justified as necessary to reach the “deserving poor”, or to satisfy critics of “lenient” social policies and therefore gain political support for an initiative. From a human rights perspective, these justifications require cautious analysis to assess whether or not the penalization measure pursues a legitimate aim under human rights law and is proportionate to that aim. States must not impose more restrictive measures than are required for the achievement of the purpose of the limitation. 22. Particular attention should be paid to economic justifications for penalization measures. Economic reasons are not only outside the range of limitations permissible under human rights law, they also contradict the reality that the implementation of penalization measures is extremely costly. Penalization measures necessitate greater numbers of law enforcement and public service staff; increase the number of individuals in the penal and criminal justice systems; and require considerable outlays on administrative monitoring procedures, such as means testing and benefit surveillance. 23. In many cases, the cost of employing reactive penalization measures greatly outweighs the costs that would be incurred in addressing the root causes of poverty and exclusion. If resources dedicated to policing, surveillance and detention were instead invested in addressing the causes of poverty and improving access to public services, including social housing, States could drastically improve the lives of persons living in poverty and ensure that the maximum available resources are __________________ 8 9 8 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 18, 19, 21 and 22; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 4; European Social Charter, art. 31.1; Protocol of San Salvador, art. 5. The content of these requirements has been developed extensively elsewhere. See, for example, the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (E/CN.4/1985/4, annex) and the Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/CN.4/1987/17, annex). See principles 10 and 16 of the Siracusa Principles and principle 60 of the Limburg Principles (note 8 above). 11-44449