A/HRC/45/12 healthy working conditions and a healthy environment, among many others. 5 This duty is essential to the fulfilment of the rights to life, health, and other human rights implicated by exposure to hazardous substances. 6 Strengthening laws and institutions to support constitutional recognition not only contributes to preventing occurrences of future pandemics, but also promotes a healthy future for generations to come. The COVID-19 pandemic has increasingly illustrated the importance of safeguarding a healthy environment and workplace as a human right. 7. The duty to prevent exposure is incumbent on every State, and every individual has the right to be protected from exposure to hazardous substances, including the COVID-19 virus. Below, the Special Rapporteur examines the extent to which States have taken this obligation to heart. 8. Certain States have exercised their duty with remarkable clarity, commitment and leadership, demonstrating good practices in their responses to, and management and prevention of, exposure to the COVID-19 virus. The measures implemented have not come without costs in terms of employment, education and mental health. However, through strong leadership and decisive action these countries have saved countless lives while reducing overall economic damage. 9. In all of the best responses, actions were taken quickly and decisively on the basis of recommendations issued by the scientific and international community that cast aside political and other objectives and focused on preventing exposure, foreseeing the tragedy of inaction. Governments of several States exercised their duty to prevent with commendable confidence and determination, illustrating what is possible in response to public health threats due to hazardous substances, including but not limited to the COVID-19 virus. 10. At the other end of the spectrum are a handful of States whose leaders completely shunned their human rights obligations to prevent exposure to the COVID-19 virus at the earliest stages. The pandemic illustrates the failure of many governments, individually and collectively, in acknowledging and upholding their duty to prevent exposure, reflected both in the entry of the COVID-19 virus into society and then its rapid spread within and beyond national borders. The reaction of most of those States was not unlike their rejection of the evidence surrounding other public health threats, such as environmental pollution, occupational health hazards and the relentless production of, use of and eventual exposure to toxic chemicals, under a false narrative of necessary evils that cannot be reduced and eliminated. 11. A pandemic of this magnitude was preventable. The failure stems from heads of governments placing economic or political interests before national health concerns. This was reflected in their absence of precautions, their sluggish responses and rejection of preventative measures, the lack of transparency, compounded by misinformation, the callous and inexcusably irresponsible statements of certain political leaders, underinvestment in health-care systems and other social protections, and poor international cooperation. 12. Obviously, efforts to prevent further exposure have been made, and not without consequences. The implementation of necessary measures, such as lockdowns and quarantines, social distancing and mass surveillance, has been paid for dearly, including in terms of aggravation of physical and mental health problems due to a lack of social interaction and physical activity, and an alarming global increase in domestic violence against women and children.7 Millions are losing jobs and livelihoods8 without access to 5 6 7 8 4 Ibid. Ibid. See www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/04/issue-brief-covid-19-and-endingviolence-against-women-and-girls; www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx? NewsID=25778&LangID=E. See www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_743036/lang--en/index.htm and https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ccsa/documents/covid19-report-ccsa.pdf, p. 20.