A/HRC/20/15 why these steps are being taken. For example, in the mining industry, this means that a worker concerned about exposure to asbestos should have access to information detailing the steps that the State has taken to prevent or reduce exposure to this harmful substance. In order to assess whether these steps are effective, and therefore whether States are meeting their obligations under the right to occupational health, the results of the monitoring of exposure levels and the incidence of asbestos-related diseases must be available and accessible. In this manner, prospective accountability is closely linked to monitoring and evaluation, both of which are critically necessary to determine whether the actions of States are consistent with its obligations under the right to health. 51. Retrospective accountability focuses on appropriately addressing prior violations of the right to health. Violations of the right to health must be addressed through effective judicial or other appropriate remedies. In order to achieve this, effective remedies must be available, and effective accountability mechanisms must be in place to identify both the right to health violation and the appropriate remedy to redress that violation. A number of accountability mechanisms may function at the national level, including judicial, quasijudicial, administrative, political, and social mechanisms. General comment No. 14 explicitly endorses the use of judicial mechanisms to address violations of the right to health, and promotes the use of quasi-judicial bodies and social mechanisms of accountability (para. 59) These include national ombudsmen, human rights commissions, consumer forums and patient‟s rights associations. 52. Judicial accountability is one of the most critical and secure methods to achieving the full realization of the right to occupational health. Judicial review of violations of the right to health grants courts the power to subject State laws, policies, decisions and omissions affecting workers‟ occupational health to rights-based review. This also grants the judiciary the power to determine the normative content and scope of the right to health and promotes a national occupational health policy that is open, accountable, comprehensive, coherent and cooperative.55 Judicial accountability may therefore provide aggrieved workers with appropriate and adequate remedies and promote recognition of the right to occupational health by subjecting State laws and policies to judicial review. 53. Other accountability mechanisms may be used to ensure States meet their obligations under the right to occupational health. Quasi-judicial bodies, such as occupational health and safety commissions, may receive complaints about unsafe or unhealthy workplaces, investigate occupational health and safety in various work sectors, and conduct reviews of employer compliance with occupational health and safety standards. Commissions may also have the ability to hold hearings and make binding decisions imposing various sanctions. Social bodies such as workers‟ rights associations may similarly promote accountability through social mobilization and utilization of the media to pressure States to uphold their obligations under the right to health. 54. Administrative mechanisms, such as human rights impact assessments, may be used to facilitate prospective accountability. 56 Human rights impact assessments require policymakers to examine the human rights effects of proposed laws, policies or programmes prior to finalization in order to ensure that they are compliant with human 55 56 For example, article 21 of the Indian Constitution judicially interprets the right to life to include the “protection of the health and strength of the worker,” and the Supreme Court of India has recognized workers‟ right to health and medical care [as] a fundamental right. In another judgment, the Supreme Court of India ordered the „Government to ensure safety measures were implemented in factories in response to the deaths of workers due to occupational exposure to dust. Helen Potts, Participation and the right to the highest attainable standard of health (Essex, United Kingdom, University of Essex, Human Rights Centre, 2008), p. 20. 17