CRC/C/88/D/104/2019 10.14 Taking the above-mentioned factors into account, the Committee concludes that the authors have sufficiently justified, for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction, that the impairment of their Convention rights as a result of the State party’s acts or omissions regarding the carbon emissions originating within its territory was reasonably foreseeable. It also concludes that the authors have established prima facie that they have personally experienced real and significant harm in order to justify their victim status. Consequently, the Committee finds that it is not precluded by article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the authors’ communication. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 10.15 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication should be found inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It also notes the State party’s argument that article 41 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the right to a healthy environment, that article 43 recognizes the environmental writ of amparo, and that the General Environment Act contains several provisions that enable actions in environmental matters (writ of redress for collective environmental damage). It further notes the State party’s argument that the Office of the Chief Public Defender and the Office of the Ombudsperson for the Rights of Children and Adolescents have the mandate to provide free legal aid and representation to children in environmental litigation. Furthermore, it notes the State party’s argument that, under domestic law, collective rights or rights with a collective impact are recognized and that, depending on the type of remedy sought, directly or indirectly injured parties, the ombudspersons, civil society organizations and national, provincial and municipal authorities have standing to bring claims for environmental damage, thus eliminating barriers to access to justice in environmental matters. 10.16 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that the defence of arraigo under article 348 of the Code of Civil Procedure would bar the authors domiciled abroad from pursuing any kind of litigation in the State party. It also notes their argument that the remedy of amparo is ill-suited to their technically complex case involving demands for policy changes and international cooperation as such proceedings do not allow for extensive debate or evidence, or a declaration that particular laws, decrees or ordinances are unconstitutional. It further notes the authors’ argument that an action for environmental remediation under article 30 of the General Environment Act, while broader and allowing for debate and evidence, can address only past or existing and localized harms, and that it therefore is not a suitable vehicle for transforming the State party’s national and international policies. Moreover, the Committee notes the authors’ argument that the Office of the Chief Public Defender, the Office of the Ombudsperson for the Rights of Children and Adolescents, and the Office of the Ombudsperson are discretionary remedies and therefore unlikely to be effective. 10.17 The Committee recalls that authors must make use of all judicial or administrative avenues that may offer them a reasonable prospect of redress. The Committee considers that domestic remedies need not be exhausted if, objectively, they have no prospect of success, for example in cases where under applicable domestic laws the claim would inevitably be dismissed or where established jurisprudence of the highest domestic tribunals would preclude a positive result. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that mere doubts or assumptions about the success or effectiveness of remedies do not absolve the authors from exhausting them.23 10.18 In the present case, the Committee notes that the authors have not attempted to initiate any domestic proceeding in the State party. The Committee also notes the authors’ argument that they would face unique obstacles in exhausting domestic remedies as it would be unduly burdensome for them, unreasonably prolonged and unlikely to bring effective relief. It further notes their argument that domestic courts would most likely dismiss their claims, which implicate the State’s obligation to engage in international cooperation, because of the nonjusticiability of foreign policy and foreign sovereign immunity. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that the State party’s alleged failure to engage in international cooperation is raised in connection with the specific form of remedy that the authors are seeking, and that they have not sufficiently established that such a remedy is necessary to bring effective relief. 23 D.C. v. Germany (CRC/C/83/D/60/2018), para. 6.5. 13