A/HRC/39/48 Principle 14 — Workers or their families should not bear the burden of proving the cause of their illness or disability to access an effective remedy. 110. Placing the burden of proof on those harmed by toxic substances at work can be an enormous and often insurmountable challenge. States should ensure that when there is information that a worker may have been exposed to toxic substances at work and where such exposure has been demonstrated to cause harm in similar situations, the burden should shift to the employer to prove no harm. 79 This may be particularly appropriate where the facts and events relevant to resolving a claim lie wholly or in part within the exclusive control of the employer or other third party. 111. Information that a worker may have been exposed to toxic substances need not be in the form of exposure levels or identification of the precise chemical; it can also include information that occupational diseases are known to have occurred in a particular type of work or industry. The employer or other beneficiaries of services should be allowed to try to rebut the presumption of responsibility, but the burden should be on the employer. 112. A major challenge for workers in supply chains is that the business enterprise may not have sufficient resources to provide an adequate and effective remedy to harmed workers. States must ensure that beneficiaries of services are also responsible for the provision of remedies. Indeed, States have developed legislation to address circumstances where an enterprise provides or enables another to acquire benefits of any kind from worker exploitation, which can include exposure to toxic substances. 80 Principle 15 — States should assert jurisdiction for cross-border cases of workers harmed by occupational exposure. 113. Victims of abuse of their rights by transnational business enterprises face specific obstacles in accessing effective remedies for occupational exposure to toxic substances. Challenges include proving damages and establishing causal links, as well as the financial costs of access to remedy in most jurisdictions and the lack of independence of certain judicial systems. States have the duty to take the necessary steps to address these challenges to prevent a denial of justice and ensure the right to effective remedy for victims of occupational exposure to toxic substances. 81 114. States should ensure that their laws provide for jurisdiction over workers’ exposures to toxic substances that occur abroad. Home States should assert jurisdiction for such corporate abuse, including criminal sanctions where appropriate. Effective accountability and access to remedy in transboundary cases require international cooperation, including measures for prevention and the disclosure of information. 79 80 81 If the employer does not exist or cannot otherwise provide an effective remedy to the worker, alternative recourse should be available. See, for example, the United Kingdom Modern Slavery Act 2015, Part 1, sect. 3 (5). Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 24. 21