A/HRC/36/41 different types of substances, different product categories, information requirements and other aspects relevant to the State’s duty to protect. 58. However, there is often a disconnect between the standards of protection actually required to uphold human rights and the standards of protection that are established under legislation. There is a need in all countries to better ensure that laws and policies on toxics reflect the State’s human rights obligations. This is particularly apparent in view of the inequalities and denial of dignity faced by many of the vulnerable groups described above. The excessive emphasis placed by States on risk to the overall population leaves the most vulnerable suffering disproportionately from toxic exposure. 59. Of significant concern is the number of States that consistently reference their compliance with the narrow patchwork of global treaties for hazardous substances and wastes as evidence that they uphold human rights in that area. As discussed above, existing treaties do not have the appropriate scope to justify such an assertion. Non-regression and progressive realization 60. Under the principle of non-regression, States must not reduce human rights protection in the area of toxics unless there is strong justification for a retrogressive measure.50 61. Furthermore, States must continuously improve the protection of rights against the impacts of toxics, including by compelling businesses to develop safer, healthier products and processes. 51 States must elevate legal standards of protection as “expeditiously and effectively as possible”52 to protect the right to health, and take “all possible measures to reduce infant mortality and to increase life expectancy”.53 States must have systems in place to generate data to inform themselves of the progress necessary, and report publicly on that progress and challenges. The fact that progressive realization is foreseen for certain rights implicated by toxics “should not be misinterpreted as depriving the obligation of all meaningful content”.54 Secure compliance and ensure enforcement 62. States must enforce legislation intended to protect human rights implicated by toxics.55 Effective compliance and enforcement often requires strong mechanisms to ensure cooperation and coordination among public prosecutors and regulatory, inspection and customs officials. Without compliance and enforcement, legislation can be devoid of meaning. Compliance and enforcement are mutually supported by monitoring, empowerment of rights holders, criminal penalties, coordination, and the securing of financial resources, as discussed below. Leverage financial, human and technical resources for implementation 63. States must fulfil human rights through adequate allocations of budgetary and other resources. The lack of financial and technical resources is often cited as a primary challenge in protecting human rights implicated by toxics. This in part is due to a misperception by States that the cost of action is either unaffordable or greater than the cost of inaction. 50 51 52 53 54 55 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 30; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 5; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 5; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), arts. 17 and 53. Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, States have a duty to improve all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene and to prevent, treat and control endemic, occupational and other diseases (art. 12). Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 3. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 6. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 3, para. 9. See, for example, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 14, para. 51. See also Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 16. 13