CRC/C/88/D/104/2019 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 21 July 2020, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It notes that, while it shares the authors’ concerns and one of its priorities is to address the effects of climate change, the communication generally questions the environmental policy of Argentina and therefore transcends the communications mechanism. For the State party, these are issues that could be addressed through other functions of the Committee, such as the State review procedure or the development of a general comment. 4.2 The State party argues that the communication is, in relation to Argentina, absolutely generic and legally indeterminate. The communication contains references to several events that allegedly occurred within the jurisdiction of the State party: (a) an alleged windstorm in the town of Haedo, Province of Buenos Aires, which allegedly devastated the neighbourhood of one of the authors, Chiara Sacchi; (b) the alleged extreme heat in Haedo, which has increased the use of air conditioners and therefore the pressure on the electrical system, causing power outages that are common in the author’s daily life, affecting her schoolwork and ruining food stored in the refrigerator; (c) alleged recent storms, in which the author was hit by hailstones the size of golf balls. As a result, the author is very scared about the future due to climate change. Nevertheless, the communication does not provide any evidence to support these considerations, nor does it delimit the legal reproach against the State party. 4.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible ratione loci in relation to the authors who are not nationals of the State party. Although the State party acknowledges the existence of international obligations of an extraterritorial nature and the possibility of transboundary environmental damage, it considers that this is not the case in the authors’ communication. The State party recalls the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, as well as that of the European and Inter-American human rights systems, according to which the term “jurisdiction” is not limited to territory but to the relationship of power, authority or effective control between an individual and a State; 3 and “the exercise of jurisdiction by a State of origin is based on the understanding that it is the State in whose territory or under whose jurisdiction the activities were carried out that has the effective control over them and is in a position to prevent them from causing transboundary harm that impacts the enjoyment of human rights of persons outside its territory”, bearing in mind that “there must always be a causal link between the damage caused and the act or omission of the State of origin in relation to activities in its territory or under its jurisdiction or control”.4 The State party argues that, in the authors’ communication, the Committee is not competent to analyse, with respect to the State party, events that allegedly occurred outside its territory, over which it does not exercise any type of jurisdiction and which, furthermore, do not have any type of causal link that could be attributable to agents of the State party. Indeed, the authors do not provide evidence that children outside Argentina are subject to the power or control of Argentine agents. Beyond general statements about the contribution of States to climate change, the causal link between actions or omissions that could be attributable to the State party and the extreme heat in France, a fire in Tunisia or sea level rise in the Marshall Islands is not established. 4.4 The State party also submits that the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis as concerns events prior to 14 July 2015, when the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party. It argues that the use of fossil fuels and the consequent carbon emissions are not ongoing violations. 4.5 The State party further submits that the communication is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Although the communication expressly recognizes that Chiara Sacchi could challenge the State party’s climate change policy in domestic courts, the authors acknowledge that they have chosen not to do so, coming directly before the Committee and ignoring the multiple domestic legal remedies available to them that would allow them to file claims for environmental issues. The State party recalls that article 41 of the Constitution 3 4 4 European Court of Human Rights, Issa and others v. Turkey, Application No. 31821/96, Judgment of 16 November 2004, para. 71; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of 15 November 2017, requested by the Republic of Colombia, on the environment and human rights, para. 81. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, paras. 102–103.