CRC/C/88/D/104/2019 5.4 The authors reiterate their claims that they have established that each of them has been harmed and exposed to a risk of further irreparable harm as a result of climate change caused in substantial part by the State party’s failure to reduce emissions. The consequences of the State party’s acts and omissions in relation to combating climate change directly and personally harm the authors and expose them to foreseeable risks. Their assertions of harm from climate change do not constitute an actio popularis, even if children around the world may share their experiences or be exposed to similar risks. 5.5 The authors also reiterate their argument that pursuing domestic remedies would be futile as they would have no real prospect of success. They argue that the State party has failed to demonstrate that requiring exhaustion of remedies would be fair to the authors residing outside its borders. State practice and opinio juris, as reflected in article 15 (c) of the articles on diplomatic protection, of the International Law Commission, show that domestic remedies need not be exhausted in cases of transboundary environmental damage, where the victim has not made a voluntary link with the State of origin, and did not assume the risk of being harmed by that State’s pollution. They further argue that as the State party recognizes foreign State immunity, it cannot provide a domestic forum for the actual claims raised and remedies sought in the present case, which involve transboundary human rights violations caused by multiple States across multiple borders. State immunity vitiates any possible remedy for transboundary harm caused by other States. 5.6 The authors argue that none of the domestic remedies identified by the State party would be effective. The defence of arraigo under article 348 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be raised to bar a person domiciled abroad from pursuing any kind of litigation in Argentina when they are neither domiciled nor have real estate there. This defence would preclude the foreign authors from litigating their claims in Argentine courts. Even if they could somehow overcome the defence of arraigo, the domestic remedies the State party has identified are likely to be ineffective. They argue that the remedy of amparo is ill-suited to their technically complex case involving demands for policy changes and international cooperation because such proceedings do not allow for extensive debate or evidence, or a declaration that particular laws, decrees or ordinances are unconstitutional. For example, in the case of Mujeres por la Vida – Asociación Civil sin Fines de Lucro – filial Códoba – c/ E.N. – P.E.N. – Ministerio de Salud y Acción Social de la Nación s/ Amparo, the court of first instance rejected a remedy of amparo seeking a declaration that the law and national policy on the National Programme for Sexual Health and Responsible Parenthood was inapplicable throughout Argentina because the study and debate of each of the medications denounced went beyond the court’s mandate. An action for environmental remediation under article 30 of the General Environment Act (Act No. 25675) is broader and allows for debate and evidence, but it can address only past or existing and localized harms. As such, it is not a vehicle for transforming the State party’s national and international policies with the aim of preventing future harm. In addition, the authors would not be able to bring claims against foreign States through an action for remediation because they present non-justiciable issues. Act No. 27520 on Minimum Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Budgets does not provide an effective remedy either. First, the law does not require the State party to align national objectives with its international climate change commitments or to cooperate with other countries. Second, this law does not impose sanctions or any consequences for noncompliance. Thus, the public cannot invoke a violation of this law as a basis for redress. Nor would an action under the Civil and Commercial Code provide an effective remedy, including claims based on the right to a healthy environment. As with any civil action, the defence of arraigo would bar the authors who are non-nationals of the State party from raising claims in an Argentine court because they do not live or own property in Argentina. The Argentine author’s claims would also fail because the court is unlikely to instruct the executive branch on how to exercise its discretion in modifying the State party’s foreign climate change policy. Moreover, 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 of the Nation are discretionary remedies because each Ombudsperson can refuse to take up a petitioner’s case. As such, that remedy cannot be considered effective. 5.7 The authors further argue that the unique circumstances of their case would make domestic proceedings unreasonably delayed as they would have to pursue five separate cases, in each respondent State party, each of which would take years. They argue that the resolution 6