A/HRC/33/54 earmarked for poverty reduction and basic social services, such as health and education, to settling the substantial claims of vulture funds.79 Activities of vulture funds contribute to increased debt service 67. 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, 80 but also because of the situation of dependency in which it puts the debtor States. 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”.81 68. Against this background, a reduction in debt service and debt cancellation can effectively create the conditions necessary for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Facts show that such measures have allowed many countries to invest more in public services such as health care, education, water and sanitation and to abolish user fees for some of these services that were previously introduced as part of austerity measures imposed by the international financial institutions. 82 However, it remains a controversial issue 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. 69. Under present circumstances, debtor States often have little choice but to prioritize their contractual debt obligations, contrary to what human rights law would require. This suggests that a more human rights-centred approach is needed. A State’s obligation 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 E/C.12/GRC/CO/2, para.8). This 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. 70. 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 A/70/275). Sovereign debt workouts must not lead to violations of economic or social rights or prevent the attainment of internationally agreed development goals. The United Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has observed in this regard that “full debt sustainability is only achieved when debt service does not entail intolerable sacrifices for the well-being of society”.83 79 80 81 82 83 18 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”. See A/HRC/14/21, para. 69. In 2006, for example, 10 developing countries spent more on debt service than on public education, and in 52 countries debt servicing amounted to more than the public health budget. Delivering on the Global Partnership for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Millennium Development Goals Gap Task Force Report 2008 (United Nations publication, Sales No. 08.I.17), executive summary, p. x. S. Michalowski, “Sovereign debt and social rights—legal reflections on a difficult relationship”, Human Rights Law Review, vol. 8, No. 1 (January 2008), p. 39. C. 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. UNCTAD, Sovereign Debt Workouts: Going Forward: Roadmap and Guide, April 2015, p. 24.