A/HRC/37/54 24. Measures were very often characterized by horizontal, indiscriminate cuts across policy areas in order to meet financial savings that were determined in advance, rather than based on assessments of who would be impacted, whether and how the enjoyment of rights would be affected and whether alternative measures were available. Short-term measures have often been justified on the basis of their outcome in the long run, but there is a lack of empirical evidence that austerity measures have contributed to improved enjoyment of human rights for all in the long run. In fact, short-term measures that supposedly promise future social benefits may harm individuals in an irreversible manner and affect their rights, capabilities or health in a persistent manner. Austerity policies have contributed to increased social exclusion, as evidenced by long-term unemployment, an increase in homelessness and other manifestations for which there are no easy cures. Addressing such consequences costs governments much more than investing in their prevention. It seems obvious that understanding and monitoring the human rights impact of economic reform policies are critical for preventing and mitigating short- and long-term impacts and for building resilience to future crises. IV. Why human rights should guide economic reform programmes A. Legal imperatives 25. In the context of situations of financial stress, States’ obligations to promote the realization of human rights can be broadly categorized as: (a) relating to policy measures at the international, national and local levels to prevent financial crises; and (b) relating to minimizing and mitigating the human rights impact of financial crises once a crisis occurs. The two categories are related. The first category is likely to entail a far wider range of measures — from specific measures to boost employment and social protection and reduce inequality, so as to improve banking regulation and strengthen resilience and preparedness for the next crisis, to more general measures such as addressing the underlying causes of financial crises through changes in the international financial architecture. While the present report focuses more on the second category, the two are interlinked and cannot be completely separated. 26. Human rights do not dictate the specific policy measures that States should take in response to crises or other financial stress. States have the discretion to select and adopt policy measures according to their specific economic, social and political circumstances. Yet, this discretion is not without bounds; fiscal adjustment must be designed in line with specific substantive and procedural human rights obligations, which draw certain redlines that should not be crossed.24 27. While States have the primary responsibility to comply with international human rights treaties and standards, international financial institutions and other international organizations are also bound to respect human rights. States and relevant United Nations agencies should ensure that the protection of the most basic economic, social and cultural rights is, to the maximum extent possible, built into programmes and policies aimed at promoting adjustment.25 Like any other subject of international law, international financial institutions are bound by the obligations incumbent upon them under the general rules of international law, under their constitutions or under the international agreements to which they are parties. They are therefore obligated to comply with the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international human rights treaties, which 24 25 8 See Center for Economic and Social Rights, “Assessing austerity”; and Aoife Nolan, “Not fit for purpose? Human rights in times of financial and economic crisis”, European Human Rights Law Review, vol. 4 (2015) pp. 360–371. See Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 73, at p. 89, para. 37; E/C.12/2016/1, paras. 7–9; and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 2 (1990), para. 9.