A/HRC/41/51 undermine the intent of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, which is often not taken into account by national courts.60 70. This is not an isolated case, however. In 2013, the World Bank and IMF reported that commercial litigation was ongoing against eight heavily indebted poor countries. The authors of the report stressed that such legal struggles not only had adverse financial consequences for the poorest countries, but also took up considerable amounts of the time and resources of debtor government authorities.61 71. Thus, under present circumstances, funds obtained by the poorest countries from debt relief may easily be channelled to repay an outstanding loan pursuant to court rulings. As a result of aggressive, disruptive litigation, a debtor State may be forced to divert money earmarked for poverty reduction and basic social services, such as health and education, to settling the substantial claims of vulture funds. 62 Activities of vulture funds contribute to increased debt service 72. Debt burden adversely affects the protection of economic and social rights, not only because of the diversion of funds from social purposes to debt servicing, but also because of the situation of dependency in which it puts the debtor States. 63 It has been observed that such dependency “might result in a factual loss of sovereignty over their economic and social policies and in the imposition of policies with potentially negative consequences for the protection of social rights”.64 73. Against that background, a reduction in debt service and/or debt cancellation can effectively create the conditions necessary for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. The evidence is that such measures have allowed many countries to invest more in public services such as health care, education and water and sanitation, and to abolish user fees for some of those services, which had previously been introduced as part of austerity measures imposed by the international financial institutions. 65 However, it remains a controversial issue as to whether a State might be under an obligation not to repay its debt to vulture funds if it can do so only at the expense of neglecting the basic social needs of its people. 74. Under present circumstances, debtor States often have little choice but to prioritize their contractual debt obligations, contrary to what human rights law would require. That suggests that a more human rights-centred approach is needed. The obligation of a State to ensure the enjoyment of at least the minimum core of economic and social rights should take priority over its debt service obligations, particularly when such payments further limit the country’s ability to fulfil its human rights obligations (see, for example, E/C.12/GRC/CO/2, para. 8). That is particularly the case when increased debt service is derived from harmful conditions linked to speculative claims that further limit the country’s ability to fulfil its human rights obligations. 75. It is then a logical consequence of the evolution of human rights law that a State cannot decide to service debt at the expense of meeting its human rights obligations (see 60 61 62 63 64 65 See Taking Stock of the Global Partnership for Development: Millennium Development Goals Gap Task Force Report 2015 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.15.I.5), footnote 16. See The State of the Global Partnership for Development: Millennium Development Goals Gap Task Force Report 2014 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.14.I.7), p. 41. As has been observed, they “profiteer at the expense of both the citizens of HIPCs and the taxpayers of countries that have supported international debt relief efforts” (A/HRC/14/21, para. 69). In 2006, for example, 10 developing countries spent more on debt service than on public education, while in 52 countries debt service amounted to more than the public health budget. See Delivering on the Global Partnership for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Millennium Development Goals Gap Task Force Report 2008 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.08.I.17), p. x. See Sabine Michalowski, “Sovereign debt and social rights – legal reflections on a difficult relationship”, Human Rights Law Review, vol. 8, No. 1 (January 2008). See Cephas Lumina, “Sovereign debt and human rights”, in Realizing the Right to Development: Essays in Commemoration of 25 Years of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.12.XIV.1), pp. 289 and 294. 15