A/HRC/39/48 availability and accessibility of certain information regarding such substances and working conditions (A/HRC/30/40). 36. All workers who are victims of infringement or violations of their rights have the right of access to an effective remedy. 39 Effective remedies for violations of workers’ rights due to exposure to toxic substances include the right of victims to prompt restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, as well as bringing to justice the perpetrators of rights violations.40 The prevention of future exposures is common to many of the elements of an effective remedy in this regard. 37. Every rights holder is entitled to initiate proceedings for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator in accordance with the rules and procedures provided by law. States must ensure timely access to effective remedies to victims of violations occurring from exposure to hazardous chemicals (see E/CN.4/2006/42, para. 45). In various circumstances, States have shifted the burden of proof to the employer or other beneficiary of services.41 In other cases, judicial and non-judicial mechanisms have lessened the burden of proof on workers to help ensure access to remedies. 42 III. Challenges to the rights of workers affected by toxic exposures A. Inadequate standards of protection 38. Laws and policies for occupational health are often not health protective. They continue to permit workers to be exposed to toxic substances at levels that are hundreds if not thousands of times higher than for non-workers in the same jurisdiction. 43 Risk assessments are often based on incomplete knowledge or false assumptions, resulting in misleading assurances of safety and widespread impacts on workers’ health. Processes for improving standards of protection from exposure continue to be deliberately delayed for years if not decades, resulting in countless premature deaths. B. Limited progress in preventing exposure 39. The most effective means to prevent exposure of workers to toxic substances is to eliminate them from the workplace. This is reflected in the good practice known as the hierarchy of hazard controls, or “inherently safer design”, encouraged by ILO and national bodies concerned with occupational safety and health. 44 In descending order of effectiveness in terms of preventing exposure, elimination is followed by risk mitigation options such as substitution with less hazardous substances and materials, engineering controls, administrative controls and the use of personal protective equipment. 39 40 41 42 43 44 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2 (3) (a); Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 3 (1990) on the nature of States parties’ obligations; Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, paras. 11 and 15−23; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 16; and Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 39. “Presumptive legislation for firefighter cancer”, First Responder Center, 2017. Junius C. McElveen Jr., “Establishing proof of exposure”, Lexology, 2012. Ted Smith and Chad Raphael, “Health and safety policies for electronics workers”, in The Routledge Companion to Labor and Media, Richard Maxwell, ed. (Routledge, 2015), pp. 78−89 (citing Amanda Hawes). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, “Hierarchy of controls”, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 May 2018. 9