CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 substantiate, for the purpose of admissibility, the alleged violation of their rights under the Covenant. In the present case, there is no evidence that the author faced an imminent risk of being arbitrarily deprived of his life when he was removed to Kiribati. Moreover, there is no evidence that the author faces such a risk. There is also no evidence that his situation is materially different from that of all other persons in Kiribati. The domestic authorities emphasized that their conclusions should not be read to mean that environmental degradation resulting from climate change could never create a pathway into protected person jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the authorities considered that the author and his family had not established such a pathway. 4.6 Secondly, the author’s evidence contradicts his claim. His communication consists of two brief letters, and he appears to rely on the evidence that he presented to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, as well as the decisions of the domestic authorities. The Tribunal considered a substantial amount of information and evidence from both the author and an expert concerning the effects of climate change and sea level rise on the people and geography of Kiribati. The Tribunal accepted the evidence, including the author’s evidence, in its entirety. However, it found that there was no evidence that the author had faced or faced a real risk of suffering serious physical harm from violence linked to housing, land or property disputes. The Tribunal also found that there was no evidence to support the author’s claim that he was unable to grow subsistence crops or obtain potable water in Kiribati. The author had claimed that it was difficult, not impossible, to grow crops as a result of saltwater intrusion onto the land. The Tribunal considered that there was no evidence establishing that the environmental conditions the author faced or was likely to face upon return to Kiribati were so parlous that his life would be jeopardized, or that he and his family would be unable to resume their prior subsistence life with dignity. The Tribunal accepted that States have positive duties to protect life from risks arising from known natural hazards, and that failure to do so may constitute a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. However, the author could not point to any such act or omission by the Government of Kiribati that might indicate a risk that he would be arbitrarily deprived of his life within the scope of article 6 (1) of the Covenant; and he could not establish that there was at the relevant time a sufficient degree of risk to his life or that of his family. The Tribunal concluded that the risk to the author from climate change fell well short of the threshold required to establish a substantial ground for believing that he and his family would be in danger of arbitrary deprivation of life within the scope of article 6 of the Covenant. In the Tribunal’s words, the risk remained “firmly in the realm of conjecture or surmise”. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case. 4.7 The communication is also insufficiently substantiated because the author has not submitted any further evidence in addition to the evidence that has already been considered by the domestic authorities. The Immigration and Protection Tribunal accepted the evidence presented by the author. The Court of Appeal considered that the Tribunal’s decision was well-structured, carefully reasoned and comprehensive. The High Court noted that in order for the author’s application for leave to appeal to be granted, the author would have to present a seriously arguable case that the Tribunal’s factual findings were incorrect, and that it would be difficult to meet that requirement because the Tribunal had not challenged the author’s evidence. The domestic courts confirmed that the author had not established that he would suffer a violation of article 6 of the Covenant by returning to Kiribati, and that the Tribunal’s findings were therefore justified. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5. In his comments dated 25 July 2016, the author maintained that due to the lack of clean drinking water, he and his family had suffered from “reasonably bad health issues” since returning to Kiribati in September 2015. One of the author’s children suffered from a serious case of blood poisoning, which caused boils all over his body. The author and his family are also unable to grow crops. Before the Supreme Court of New Zealand issued its decision on the author’s case in 2015, the author had provided the Court with new information, namely, the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Report indicated that Kiribati would face serious survival issues if the increase in global temperatures and sea level continued. 6