A/HRC/11/10 page 24 88. In recent years, debt campaigners and some official creditors such as Norway, have evoked the issue of creditor co-responsibility as a way of promoting responsible lending practices in the future.46 However, some creditors and multilateral institutions have narrowly interpreted the issue of responsibility, restricting it to a question of debt sustainability.47 89. Of particular interest to the independent expert is the idea of debt audits undertaken by national authorities or civil society organizations in developing countries to ascertain what portion of a country’s debt could be considered illegitimate and therefore subject to unconditional cancellation and that of a fair and transparent debt arbitration mechanism focusing on reduction of a country’s debt based on its capacity to pay or arbitration confined to specific types of debts, such as illegitimate or odious debts. 90. The independent expert considers that the issue of co-responsibility as reflected in the Monterrey Consensus requires further elaboration as part of the global effort to address the debt crisis, with the United Nations playing a central role in this process. Consequently, he intends, in the coming year, to devote some attention to this issue. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91. This report has outlined some basic elements underpinning a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship between foreign debt and human rights and has argued for a human rights-based approach to the debt crisis that takes into consideration the principles of transparency, accountability, participation and non-discrimination, and the universality, interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights. While the proposed elements for the framework are identified on a tentative basis and require further elaboration, the independent expert considers that the principles outlined therein serve as a useful starting point for addressing the debt crisis in a just, equitable and sustainable manner. 92. The problem of debt is not an exclusively economic one; it has political, ethical, moral and legal dimensions. It therefore cannot be addressed from an exclusively economic focus. The independent expert is firmly of the view that human rights must occupy a central place in the global responses to the debt crisis if the outcome is to have a real impact on the intended beneficiaries. A human rights-based approach to the debt crisis will ensure that the methods for achieving economic growth are just and that its benefits are fairly distributed. This approach is consistent with the centrality of human rights within the broader mission of the United Nations and with the commitments expressed in the Monterrey Consensus. 46 The Norwegian Government’s 2005 Declaration explicitly expresses the intention to support international debt arbitration of illegitimate debts: “The Government will support the work to set up an international debt settlement court that will hear matters concerning illegitimate debt.” 47 Eurodad, “Parliamentary activity on debt: a growing challenge”, June 2007, p. 6.