Pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 54/10, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Marcos Orellana, will present a thematic report, including recommendations, to the United Nations Human Rights Council in September 2025. His thematic report will focus, in accordance with his mandate, on access to justice and effective remedies in the context of toxics.

The Special Rapporteur is an independent expert appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 Member States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe. The Special Rapporteur is part of a system of so-called United Nations Special Procedures, consisting of independent human rights experts with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. Their activities include undertaking country visits, sending communications to States or other actors about human rights concerns or violations, conducting thematic reports, convening expert consultations, contributing to the development of international human rights standards, and engaging in technical cooperation. Special Rapporteurs are selected on the basis of their expertise and experience in the area of their mandate, personal integrity, independence, impartiality, and objectivity. They are not employed by the United Nations and do not receive remuneration for their work.

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights seeks to help States, businesses, and other stakeholders to adopt solutions regarding harmful substances and human rights issues.

Dr. Marcos A. Orellana was appointed Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights in August 2020 and was reappointed in 2023 for a second three-year term. He is an expert in international law and the law on human rights and the environment. His practice as legal advisor has included work with United Nations agencies, governments, and non-governmental organizations.

Background

Access to justice and effective remedies in the context of toxics poses a global challenge for protecting human rights against the harmful effects of exposure to hazardous substances. Several barriers hinder victims’ access to justice and even impede victims in obtaining effective remedies in the context of toxics. This often results in impunity and highlights the need to strengthen normative frameworks and judicial and other mechanisms to ensure access to justice and remedies for victims of toxic exposure.

International human rights instruments and standards, including principles of due process, combined with multilateral environmental agreements, set the human rights obligations pertaining to environmental justice. These standards include those set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the 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, the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention); the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement), the Guidelines for the Development of National Legislation on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters(Bali Guidelines), among other universal and regional human rights and environmental treaties.

Effective remedy is indispensable for addressing the adverse consequences of exposure to hazardous chemicals and waste on the human rights of individuals and communities, including the rights to life, health and a healthy environment. Similarly, various forms of pollution often disproportionately affect communities in vulnerable situations. This highlights the critical importance of non-discrimination and equality in access to justice to address and remediate violations of rights.

To be effective, in cases of human rights violations involving toxic chemical and waste exposure, the remedy should secure integral reparations. This encompasses not only financial compensation for individuals and communities, but also restitution, remediation, clean-up, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition, among other measures, as appropriate.

In the legal domain, obstacles in access to justice and effective remedies are several and include limitations to standing; legal fees and costs, including where a case is not successful; the need for complex technical evidence; the geographical remoteness of rural communities; difficulties in securing adequate legal representation; and the absence of specialized judges, among others. Also, the lack of effective enforcement of judicial decisions can aggravate and perpetuate impunity. Irreversible environmental and health damage also poses obstacles to integral reparations. These barriers disproportionately affect groups in vulnerable situations, aggravate inequalities and perpetuate risks for communities exposed to hazardous substances.

A barrier that is specific to cases of toxic contamination is the invisibility of chemical risks, as human senses are limited in their ability to see or otherwise sense chemical elements or compounds. Furthermore, the information needed to establish that exposure to hazardous substances has taken place, or to causally connect exposure with clinical health impairments, is often lacking or requiring time to collect and establish. This could mean that the burden of proving risk, harm, and/or causality, as the case may be, could constitute an insurmountable obstacle for the victim.

Significant advances have been made to strengthen effective access to justice and effective remedies in various jurisdictions. Examples include the application of the dynamic burden of proof or its reversal, the expansion of legal standing, and standards that prioritize evidence of the hazardous nature of chemicals and exposure to them without requiring direct proof of causality of harm. The use of mobile courts is also of note.

Objectives

The thematic report on access to justice and effective remedies in the context of toxics aims to provide information and recommendations to strengthen normative frameworks and judicial and administrative mechanisms to ensure effective remedies for victims of human rights violations linked to toxic chemicals and waste. The report will identify obstacles, analyze relevant standards and jurisprudence, highlight national and international good practices, and evaluate the implementation of international instruments, among others. The report will also propose guidelines for enhancing the equity, accessibility, and effectiveness of legal remedies in the context of toxics.

Specific objectives of this report include:

1. Identifying and providing recommendations for reducing structural and discriminatory barriers that hinder or impede access to justice and effective remedies, including legal, procedural, and economic obstacles, with a focus on individuals and communities in vulnerable situations.
2. Supporting States in implementing regulatory and institutional frameworks to realize the right of access to justice and effective remedies in the context of toxics.
3. Exploring how international instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Escazú Agreement, the Aarhus Convention, the Bali Guidelines, among others, and the Sustainable Development Goals, can further contribute to access to justice and effective remedies in the context of toxics.
4. Promoting the creation and strengthening of suitable mechanisms, such as specialized environmental courts, programs for environmental sampling and testing, technical and financial support programs, and equitable procedural measures, to ensure the effectiveness of legal remedies and the protection of the rights at stake in cases involving toxics.
5. Proposing strategies to secure integral reparations for violations relating to toxics within national frameworks.

Key questions and types of input/comments sought

The Special Rapporteur invites all individuals, organizations and States interested in issues related to access to justice and effective remedies in the context of toxics to provide input for the preparation of his thematic report. Contributions would ideally include information on the following topics:

• Relevant jurisprudence: Information on local, regional, or international judicial decisions concerning access to justice in toxics cases, including analysis of obstacles and good practices.
• Contributions of international instruments: Examples of how human rights and environmental instruments, such as the Escazú Agreement, the Aarhus Convention, and the Bali Guidelines have strengthened access to justice and remedies in the context of toxics, and suggestions for other relevant frameworks.
  • Dynamic burden of proof: Examples of cases where the dynamic burden of proof has been applied in environmental matters generally, or specifically in cases involving toxic substances.
• Collective claims: Examples of relevant judicial decisions involving collective or popular actions.
• Environmental and human rights principles: Examples of how relevant judicial decisions may have given effect to the principles of prevention, precaution, polluter-pays, non-regression, among others.
• Role of access to information and public participation: Examples of how access to environmental and health information, including scientific information, Indigenous knowledge, and public participation have contributed to access to justice and remedies in toxic contamination cases.
• Barriers to justice: Information on obstacles, such as limited legal standing, prohibitive legal costs, complex technical evidence requirements, or lack of enforcement of judicial decisions on toxic contamination.
• Differentiated impacts on groups in vulnerable situations: Barriers faced by individuals and groups in situations of vulnerability, such as Indigenous Peoples, tribal peoples, women, children, rural communities, or defenders of environmental rights, to access justice and remedies in toxic contamination cases, including the differentiated impacts they experience.
• Good practices in integral or comprehensive reparations: Examples of judicial, administrative, or mediation mechanisms that have resulted in integral reparations for environmental and other damages caused by hazardous substances.

How inputs will be used?

The input will inform the preparation of the thematic report of the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council.

Unless otherwise specified, the input will be published on the website of the Special Rapporteur. If you would NOT like your written input or any other information to be published on the website of the Special Rapporteur, please explicitly indicate this in your input. While we encourage submissions on general situations, in view of consent and privacy issues, contributions containing names of alleged victims will be considered but not published online.

Useful contacts and links for organizations and representatives who wish to be in contact with the Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights follow:

• E-mail: [email protected]

• OHCHR website of the Special Rapporteur

  Social Media

  Follow the Special Rapporteur:

• On X (Twitter): @SRtoxics
• On Bluesky: @srtoxics.bsky.social
• On Linked in: Global Toxics & Human Rights Project

The Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights thanks you for your input.