A/HRC/25/53 rights of those in the Niger delta region in finding that “the care that should have been taken”, including by taking reasonable measures to prevent pollution and ecological degradation from oil production, “was not taken.”48 Similarly, the European Court has decided cases in which it held that States failed to strike a fair balance between protecting rights from environmental harm and protecting other interests.49 54. In this respect, national and international health standards may be particularly relevant. For example, in deciding whether a State had failed to comply with its obligations under the European Social Charter with respect to the right to health, the European Committee of Social Rights evaluated the danger posed by water pollution in light of water safety standards set by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other public bodies.50 The European Court has also considered national and WHO health and safety standards in deciding whether States have reached a fair balance between environmental protection and other interests.51 55. Another relevant factor in deciding whether an environmental law meets human rights obligations is whether it is retrogressive. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has strongly discouraged retrogressive actions with respect to fulfilment of the rights protected by the International Covenant, in light of the obligation in the Covenant to move as expeditiously as possible towards full realization of the rights. The Committee stated in its general comment on the right to the highest attainable standard of health that “as with all other rights in the Covenant, there is a strong presumption that retrogressive measures taken in relation to the right to health are not permissible.” If States do take deliberately retrogressive measures, then they have the burden of proving that they first carefully considered all alternatives, and that the measures “are duly justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant in the context of the full use of the State party’s maximum available resources” (para. 32).52 56. Finally, after a State has adopted environmental standards into its law, it must implement and comply with those standards. As the European Court has stated: “Regulations to protect guaranteed rights serve little purpose if they are not duly enforced.”53 Interpreting the African Charter, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States has held that it is not enough to adopt measures “if these measures just remain on paper and are not accompanied by additional and concrete measures aimed at preventing the occurrence of damage or ensuring accountability, with the effective reparation of the environmental damage suffered.”54 In addition, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has made clear that the Covenant obliges States to refrain from “unlawfully polluting air, water and soil, e.g. through industrial waste from State-owned facilities” (general comment No. 14, para. 34) and to refrain from “unlawfully diminishing or polluting water” (general comment No. 15, para. 21). 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Ogoniland case, para. 54. See, for example, López Ostra v. Spain, No. 16798/90, 9 December 1994; Tatar v. Romania, No. 67021/01, 27 January 2009. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) v. Greece, No. 72/2011, 23 January 2013, paras. 42–44, 148. See, for example, Dubetska and others v. Ukraine, No. 30499/03, 10 May 2011, para. 107 (national standards); Fägerskiöld v. Sweden, No. 37664/04, 26 February 2008 (WHO standards). See also the Committee’s general comment No. 15, para. 19. Moreno Gómez v. Spain, No. 4143/02, 16 February 2005, para. 61. See also Giacomelli v. Italy, No. 59909/00, 26 March 2007, para. 93. SERAP v. Nigeria, para. 105. 15