A/HRC/5/5 page 18 on the enjoyment of human rights. In some of the reports which have retained the attention of the Special Rapporteur, private corporations are linked to the release of toxic and dangerous products into the environment in the course of armed conflict. 41. Some of the cases concern the production of herbicides that have been used in armed conflict. Companies producing herbicides or defoliants destined to be used in the context of armed conflict have been accused of using higher concentrations of toxic chemicals in those herbicides than those used in herbicides intended for regular peacetime use by the agricultural industry. Private corporations can also be involved in the spraying of such herbicides, after being awarded a contract by Government. As such, their actions have a direct impact on the enjoyment of human rights by those living in sprayed areas. Corporations may thus be held liable for their direct involvement in the violation of human rights, or for supplying toxic or dangerous products in the knowledge that their use would lead to a violation of human rights. 42. Private companies have a primary role in the dumping of toxic wastes in countries affected by armed conflicts. By exporting toxic wastes to conflict-affected areas, private corporations may profit from the vulnerability of the State by disposing of toxic waste in an illicit manner. According to a UNEP study, unsafe disposal of toxic waste may cost as little as $2.50 per tonne in Africa instead of $250 per tonne for safe disposal in Europe.46 The Special Rapporteur shares UNEP’s concern as to whether it is “ethically questionable to negotiate a hazardous waste contract with a country in the midst of a protracted civil war and with a factionalized Government that could not sustain a functional legal and proper waste management system”.47 In order to try to mitigate the adverse effects of the instability caused by armed conflict, the Special Rapporteur recommends that technical assistance be provided to concerned Governments, in order to strengthen the ability of the State to monitor and control the movement of toxic and dangerous products and wastes, particularly during armed conflict and in the immediate aftermath. 43. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the lack of accountability of private corporations for actions which have an adverse effect on human rights. In relation to Agent Orange, the defoliant used during the conflict in South-East Asia, several lawsuits have been launched against the manufacturer of this product. The lawsuits launched by plaintiffs from the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were settled out of court in 1984 without the manufacturers admitting any liability. In a recent case involving South Korean veterans, the Seoul High Court concluded that the defoliant contained higher than standard dioxin levels and awarded medical compensation to the victims.48 However, seeking redress in a jurisdiction which is not that of the home State of the transnational corporation can pose problems. The 46 UNEP, After the Tsunami: Rapid Environmental Assessment (2006), p. 135. 47 Ibid., p. 134. 48 Cases 2002Na32662 and 2002Na32686, Seoul High Court, 26 January 2006. Summary in English available at http://www.korealaw.com/content/infocus/content.asp?id=69.