A/HRC/45/12/Add.3 Para 85, 1st sentence, comments: We recommend clarifying that the victim of a human rights violation has a right to an effective remedy, which may include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Para 93, 1st sentence, comments: The Special Rapporteur is correct that a State must consider its human rights obligations when considering actions/inaction related to hazardous wastes/substances. There are plausible situations where causing or allowing exposure could be a human rights violation. However, there is no IHRL obligation to prevent exposure, etc. It is correct to say that there are obligations related to these issues. Canada also recommends using “responsibility” to describe a State’s moral responsibility or political commitments. “Obligation” must be reserved for binding obligations under treaty or customary international law. Para 94, 1st sentence, comments: While some Canadian containers were alleged to be in violation of the Basel Convention, this was never determined (please see additional context and comments provided by Environment and Climate Change). We strongly disagree with the inclusion of the erroneous claim in the first line that any shipments were “in violation of the Basel Convention.” Para 94, 2nd sentence, comments: It was Canada that repatriated the waste in question, not the Philippines. Therefore, the claim in the second line that the waste was “sent back by the Philippines” is an error in fact. We note that the reference on which this claim is based itself claims that Canada repatriated the waste. Further, the claim that Canada had “failed to compel the business involved to return the waste” is an error in fact. Rather, the Canadian company was dissolved and unable to do so. The second line misrepresents past events and ongoing efforts by Canada to resolve any issues related to the transboundary shipment of waste to Asia in a timely and collaborative manner. Therefore, we consider the claim that that Canada failed to act “despite repeated protests in importing countries” to be an error in fact. Para 94, 2nd sentence, recommended language: Canada suggests redrafting to the following: “The Government of Canada was unable to compel the business involved to return the waste as the business was dissolved, which was after 5 years repatriated by Canada” This sentence is to do with the Philippines, so this should be singular – “in one importing country”. The words “sent back by the Philippines” should be changed to: “returned to Canada”. Canada was in fact responsible for the return of the waste from the Philippines. Para 94, last sentence, comments: The claim in the third line that “Illegal shipments were also reported in…Indonesia” is an error in fact, as some containers in Indonesia are alleged to contain Canadian waste but showed third countries as the final point of departure before arriving in Indonesia (mainly the US). While there were reports of Canadian waste in Indonesia, we are not aware of any allegations, including in the SR Report’s reference, that any containers in Indonesia were illegal and shipped from Canada. The footnote here does not refer to any problematic shipments of waste from Canada to Indonesia, and there have not been any reported cases of illegal shipments to Indonesia. It is recommended to delete the reference to Indonesia. For the Malaysia case there was 9