CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006 page 9 that this does not constitute a procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol,1 since the 1503 procedure is very different in nature from the one provided for under the Optional Protocol and does not allow for an examination of the individual case resulting in a decision on the merits. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s complaint that the diversion of water caused the drying out and degradation of her community’s land, some of which belonged to her, and the death of livestock, which violated her right not to be deprived of her livelihood under article 1, paragraph 2, and her right to privacy and family life under article 17 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence whereby the Optional Protocol provides a procedure under which individuals can claim that their individual rights have been violated, but that these rights do not include those set out in article 1 of the Covenant.2 Concerning the author’s reference to article 17, the Committee considers that the facts as presented by the author raise issues that are related to article 27.3 In this regard it points out that the State party’s observations are general in nature and do not refer to the violation of a specific article of the Covenant. 6.4 As for the author’s complaint that she was deprived of her right to an effective remedy, the Committee notes that this has been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility insofar as it raises issues under article 2, paragraph 3 (a) taken together with article 27, of the Covenant. In contrast, the allegation of a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, in that the authorities did not take into account the complaints because they were made by members of an indigenous community, has not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and must be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 Therefore, the Committee declares the communication admissible in respect of the complaints under article 27, taken alone and read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered this communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required by article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. The issue it must clarify is whether the water diversion operations which caused degradation of the author’s land violated her rights under article 27 of the Covenant. 1 See the decisions adopted by the Committee on communications Nos. 1/1976, A. et al. v. Uruguay, adopted on 26 January 1978, and 910/2000, Randolph v. Togo, adopted on 27 October 2003, para. 8.4. 2 See, among others, the Committee’s Views in communications Nos. 167/1984, Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, 26 March 1990, para. 32.1; 547/1993, Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand, 27 October 2000, para. 9.2; and 932/2000, Gillot v. France, adopted on 15 July 2002, para. 13.4. 3 See communication No. 167/1984, op. cit., para. 32.2.