A/HRC/37/63 taxation to specifically prohibit “sweetheart” deals; (g) conduct systematic human rights impact assessments to monitor the spillover effects of their tax policies and agreements nationally and overseas (these should be periodic and independently verified); (h) impose criminal penalties for abusive tax practices and abolish tax amnesties; (i) enact legislation to protect whistle-blowers and witnesses, and ensure that individuals who want to share information about corporate tax practices that harm human rights are not prosecuted or subjected to reprisals; States should cease punishing individuals for disclosing information that the public has a right to receive pursuant to article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A charter on the rights of whistle-blowers and a “protected disclosure defence” should be adopted, pursuant to which criminal or civil liability for protected disclosures is waved and an “authorized channel” is provided for such disclosures; and (j) introduce a financial transactions tax and enforce it. J. International financial institutions 64. In his 2017 reports on the World Bank and IMF, the Independent Expert called upon both Bretton Woods institutions to amend their Articles of Agreement so as to better serve the purposes and principles of the United Nations, precisely because some of their activities had entered into conflict with the human rights and development goals of the United Nations. 65. The Independent Expert recommended that both institutions should amend their Articles of Agreement so as to integrate human rights and require human rights, health and environmental impact assessments before approving projects or loans. He also recommended the abolition of the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (A/HRC/30/44). 66. He proposed that the General Assembly take appropriate measures to bring the World Bank and IMF on board, so that they worked for development and human rights and assisted the world community in the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, solving global problems, including pandemics, climate change and sovereign debt. 67. In his report, he also called on IMF to abandon its misguided prioritization of economic growth above all other considerations, including human rights and the environment. Indeed, there is evidence that, within the institution, broader considerations, including income and gender inequalities, are already being discussed. In June 2016, the research department of IMF produced a paper, entitled “Neoliberalism oversold?”, in which it questioned the efficacy of the current guiding ideology of IMF. The authors begin with the ominous finding that, “instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion”, and concluding that the current policies did not deliver as expected.23 68. The strict and selective loan conditions imposed by IMF, such as the requirement that States demonstrate rapid economic growth, discourages States from making long-term investments in health, education and public infrastructure. Furthermore, the lack of a global consensus on sovereign debt restructuring means that States that are not in a position to pay back loans may fall into vicious debt crises. Together, these factors can increase unemployment, worsen working conditions, reduce access to free quality education and weaken environmental protection. In a systematic sense, they also diminish the capacity of States to guarantee rights and can lead to underresourced public sectors that are vulnerable to breakdowns and emergencies. 69. At this year’s spring meeting of the World Bank and IMF, the Independent Expert had the opportunity to discuss a variety of issues with lawyers and economists at both 23 18 Jonathan D. Ostry, Prakash Loungani and Davide Furceri, “Neoliberalism: oversold?”, Finance and Development, vol. 53, No. 2 (June 2016). Available at www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/ 2016/06/pdf/ostry.pdf. See also Rick Rowden, “The IMF confronts its N-word”, Foreign Policy, 6 July 2016. Available at http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/06/the-imf-confronts-its-n-wordneoliberalism.