References to occupational exposures Challenges faced by workers Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about the withholding of or failure to generate information about toxic chemicals in order to shield corporate liability. In addition to the lack of transparency about hazardous substances used or released in the workplace, critical information about alleged victims was not disclosed by the Government, businesses or civil society to the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur had the opportunity to meet with several victims and victims’ family members, Samsung Electronics, the Mediation Committee, and members of the Government. As of May 2016, Samsung Electronics claimed it had compensated 110 former workers affected with the specified diseases and had physically presented apology letters from the chief executive officer to those subject to compensation. The Special Rapporteur understands there are concerns regarding how the compensation process adhered to the recommendations of the Mediation Committee and encourages all parties to increase transparency and participation in this regard. Also in January 2016, Samsung Electronics reversed its previous position on “prevention”. It agreed with other parties to establish a three-member Ombudsman Committee to conduct an audit of the efforts of Samsung Electronics relating to prevention and propose recommendations for improvement. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the establishment of the Ombudsman Committee, and looks forward to its implementation with both transparency and meaningful public participation by all stakeholders. The Special Rapporteur also welcomes the acceptance by SK Hynix of including miscarriage and infertility in the scope of the agreement of what would be considered for compensation, in line with safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction. As of January 2016, SK Hynix had identified and compensated 39 former workers. The long path to resolving cases illustrates the considerable difficulty workers face in demonstrating a sufficient causal relationship to realize their right to an effective remedy for the impacts of toxic chemicals. For a disease to be recognized as an occupational disease under article 5 (1) of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, there must be a “proximate causal relationship” between the worker’s duties and disease. Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act stipulates the specific conditions, in particular, that “causal relationship between the work-related injury and the disease should be medically recognized”. In contrast to the strict standard applied by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service pursuant to article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, courts in the Republic of Korea take a more lenient approach to the issue of causation. The Supreme Court has ruled that the claimant has the burden of proving the causal relationship; however, the causal relationship need not be proven medically or scientifically but can be inferred from the consideration of various situational factors. Consideration of all the circumstances, such as the health of the worker at the time of employment, possible explanations for the disease, whether any hazardous substances existed in the workplace and the amount of time the worker spent in the workplace, makes possible the • Inaccessible remedies, justice and accountability A/HRC/39/48 44 Report