CRC/C/88/D/104/2019 admissible when the determination of the potential validity of the act requires extensive debate or evidence or the declaration of unconstitutionality of laws, decrees or ordinances. The authors note that they do not dispute the existence of a right to a healthy environment under article 41 of the Constitution. Rather, they argue that the remedy of amparo is not a suitable remedy to ensure its protection in the authors’ case. They further reiterate their argument that the remedy provided under the General Environment Act is designed to deal with less complex cases and remediation of environmental harm. A remediation action is broader than a remedy of amparo and allows for debate and evidence, but it can address only past or existing and localized harm. It is not a vehicle for transforming the State party’s national and international climate policies with the aim of preventing harm that would materialize in the future. In addition, the defence of arraigo, which requires litigants to be domiciled or have real estate in the State party, would preclude 15 out of the 16 authors from participating in an environmental remediation case. 8.4 The authors reiterate their argument that they would also face significant delays in State party courts, both in obtaining a decision and in implementation of the decision. They note that in the case of Fundación Ciudadanos Independientes c. San Juan, the plaintiff organization first filed an environmental remediation action in 2009 to prevent environmental harm from the Veladero gold mine. Several cyanide spills and more than a decade later, there is still no final judgment in the case. The authors further argue that even when plaintiffs obtain a favourable judgment, effective implementation of that judgment is not guaranteed. In 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the Government to submit a clean-up plan for the Matanza-Riachuelo river basin. Despite this court victory, the Matanza-Riachuelo river basin is still one of the most polluted waterways in Latin America, and little has improved for the communities along the river’s shores. In addition, because of a strict separation of powers doctrine, domestic courts are unlikely to dictate what national policies on climate change should achieve or direct the federal Government to engage in international cooperation, given the wide discretion granted to the executive branch in the realms of public policies and diplomatic relations. State party’s oral comments 8.5 The State party provides additional comments on its commitment to environmental protection and addressing climate change, with regard to both domestic and foreign policy. It reiterates its arguments on the lack of jurisdiction over the authors and the lack of a causal link between the alleged generic damages and any act or omission that could be attributable to the State party or its agents. 8.6 With regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party explains that both constitutionally and statutorily, domestic law has recognized so-called collective rights or “derechos de incidencia colectiva” (rights with a collective impact), and has expanded the standing or locus standi of potential plaintiffs. Depending on the type of remedy sought, directly or indirectly injured parties, the ombudspersons, civil society organizations and national, provincial and municipal authorities are given extraordinary standing to bring claims for environmental damage, thus eliminating barriers to access to justice in environmental matters.7 The State party also highlights that the costs of initiating proceedings in these matters is not a restriction for the authors, since the court fees amount to the equivalent of less than 50 cents of a United States dollar. Parties need to bear only the corresponding legal fees of their own representation. Nevertheless, if needed, parties, particularly children,8 are entitled by law to free legal aid and have various other possibilities of representation through the Ombudsperson, civil society organizations or any of the legal 7 8 8 The State party refers to art. 30 of General Environment Act (No. 25675) and the Act on State Responsibility (No. 26944). The State party also mentions that “preventive action” is another available legal recourse, and is regulated under art. 1711 of the Civil and Commercial Code. The State party refers to art. 27 (c) of Act No. 26061 on the Comprehensive Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents.