A/HRC/33/54 V. National legislation 34. At present, only two countries, Belgium and the United Kingdom, have enacted some sort of legal framework to discourage disruptive litigation initiated by vulture funds. In 2013, United Kingdom legislation was replicated in the Overseas Territories and the dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. 39 Attempts to enact similar initiatives in France and the United States have so far failed.40 35. While these national laws have played an important deterrent role, it is evident that more national laws are needed to tackle this problem effectively. The enactment of national legislation is particularly needed in those jurisdictions preferred by vulture funds for starting litigation or enforcing attachments. In that regard, useful guidelines for States can be derived from existing domestic laws and experience on their implementation, including the following: (a) protection should be extended to any debt-distressed country and not only to HIPCs; (b) where possible, procedures should allow for the identification of debts that are protected from the claims of vulture funds, on the basis of objective criteria; (c) concerns about the socioeconomic situation of the debtor State and the well-being of its population should be adequately incorporated and addressed by the legislator; and (d) issues regarding the lack of transparency in the secondary debt market and the operation of vulture funds in tax havens should be also tackled. Belgium 36. Belgium was the first country to pass a law, in 2008, to safeguard “funds disbursed towards development cooperation and debt relief” from vulture funds’ actions.41 The legislation was adopted in reaction to the numerous lawsuits lodged before national courts by vulture funds seeking to seize the funds allocated to developing poor countries under official development assistance programmes. 42 The law automatically bars such attempts. 37. A law passed in 2015 set out a more detailed framework by fixing limits to the amount that legitimately can be claimed by the vulture funds.43 In cases where it is demonstrated that the creditor pursues an “illegitimate advantage” through the repurchase of a loan or a claim owed by a State, the law provides that “its rights with respect to the debtor State will be limited to the price it paid to repurchase such a loan or debt”. 38. Further, the law sets two cumulative conditions that must be fulfilled in order to conclude that an “illegitimate advantage” is being pursued. First, there must be a “manifest disproportion” between the repurchase price of the loan or debt and the face value or the amounts that the creditor seeks to recover from the State; second, at least one of the following criteria must be met: (a) The debtor State was insolvent (or a default was imminent) at the time of the debt buy-back; (b) 39 40 41 42 43 The creditor is based in a tax haven or similar jurisdiction; See, for example, Debt Relief (Developing Countries) (Jersey) Law 2013. See Proposition de loi no 3214, visant à lutter contre l’action des fonds financiers dits « fonds vautours », 28 June 2006; and H.R.2932, Stop Very Unscrupulous Loan Transfers from Underprivileged Countries to Rich, Exploitive Funds Act, 1 August 2008. Loi visant à empêcher la saisie ou la cession des fonds publics destinés à la coopération internationale, notamment par la technique des fonds vautours, 6 April 2008. Ten lawsuits were lodged against the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2007 alone. Sookum, Stop Vulture Funds Lawsuits, pp. 90-91. Loi relative à la lutte contre les activités des fonds vautours, 12 July 2015. 11