CRC/C/88/D/104/2019 clinics at universities or pro bono lawyers at bar associations registered under the National Registry of Children’s Lawyers.9 8.7 With regard to the duration of proceedings, the State party explains that, in line with international standards, the length of domestic proceedings cannot be measured in the abstract, but must be subject to a case-by-case analysis, contemplating the complexity of the matter, the procedural actions taken by the parties and the diligence of the courts involved. 10 It explains that, for example, the delays in the Fundación Ciudadanos Independientes c. San Juan case are explained by the complexity of the process, which includes factual and evidentiary complexities (such as the occurrence of facts in Chile); the fact that the number of defendants has progressively increased, at the will of the plaintiff only; and that there is an significant amount of criminal jurisdictional activity involved. The State party explains that, with regard to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the alleged delay in proceedings is unproven. In fact, not only have plaintiffs been able to continue to bring all kinds of complaints, but also these cases have been given impetus and expediency because of the pandemic. The State party cites a case before the Supreme Court initiated during the domestic quarantine, on 23 June 2020, in which, in less than two months, the Court considered that an inter-jurisdictional environmental or ecologic resource (the Paraná river delta) had been significantly affected, seriously compromised its functioning and sustainability.11 The Court considered the conservation of the river delta a priority for both current and future generations (much akin to the authors’ argument in their communication) and issued an injunction for the immediate creation of an environmental emergency committee at the federal level. 8.8 The State party explains that since the 1994 constitutional reform, the judiciary has been closely involved in reviewing the constitutionality of public policy, including matters related to the environment. For example, the judiciary decided to suspend a series of authorizations for the felling of trees, modifying the criteria for conducting separate environmental impact assessments and obliging the relevant authorities to conduct an aggregate, comprehensive environmental impact study.12 It also issued injunctions to cease and redress environmental damage by obliging the relevant authorities to conduct dredging work in the Tarariras stream.13 The State party refers to several other cases in which the active intervention of the judiciary in public policy matters shows that the principle of the separation of powers is not an obstacle to judicial review when it comes to the protection of environmental rights. The State party therefore argues that there are no barriers in place for the authors to exhaust domestic remedies and give the State party the opportunity to address any alleged violations. Oral hearing with the authors 9. Following an invitation by the Committee and pursuant to rule 19 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, 11 of the authors appeared before the Committee on 28 May 2021 by way of videoconference in a closed meeting, without the presence of State representatives. They explained to the Committee how climate change had affected their daily lives and expressed their views about what the respondent States parties should do about climate change and why the Committee should consider their complaints. 9 10 11 12 13 The State party highlights the fact that the domestic legal system recognizes the progressive capacity of children and adolescents, in line with their age and level of maturity, allowing them to exercise their rights on their own behalf, through legal aid and representation. The State party cites Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Furlan and Family v. Argentina (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 31 August 2012, para. 156. Supreme Court, Equística Defensa del Medio Ambiente Asociación Civil c/ Santa Fe, Provincia de y otros s/ amparo ambiental, Case No. 468/2020-00. Supreme Court, Salas, Dino y otros c/ Salta, Provincia de y Estado Nacional s/ amparo, Case No. S. 1144. XLIV, Judgment of 26 March 2009. The State party also refers to Mendoza, Beatriz Silvia y otros c/ Estado Nacional y otros s/ daños y perjuicios (daños derivados de la contaminación ambiental del Río Matanza-Riachuelo), Case No. FA18000036, Judgment of 12 April 2018. Supreme Court, Nordi, Amneris Lelia c. Buenos Aires, Provincia de y otros s/ daño ambiental, Case No. 180/2010, Judgment of 29 August 2019. 9