CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 been reached. 4 It would indeed be counter-intuitive to the protection of life to wait for deaths to be very frequent and considerable in number in order to consider the threshold of risk as met. It is the standard upheld in the Committee that threats to life can be a violation of the right, even if they do not result in the loss of life. 5 It should be sufficient that the child of the author has already suffered significant health hazards on account of the environmental conditions. It is enough that the author and his family are already facing significant difficulty in growing crops and resorting to the life of subsistence agriculture on which they were largely dependent. Consideration of the author’s situation and that of his family, balanced with all the facts and circumstances of the situation in the author’s country of origin, reveals a livelihood short of the dignity that the Covenant seeks to protect. 6. Lastly, while it is laudable that Kiribati is taking adaptive measures to reduce the existing vulnerabilities and address the evils of climate change, it is clear that the situation of life continues to be inconsistent with the standards of dignity for the author, as required under the Covenant. The fact that that is a reality for many others in the country does not make it any more dignified for the persons living in such conditions. The action taken by New Zealand is more like forcing a drowning person back into a sinking vessel, with the “justification” that after all, there are other passengers on board. Even as Kiribati does what it takes to address the conditions, for as long as they remain dire, the life and dignity of persons remains at risk. 4 5 14 See para. 2.9 of the Committee’s Views. See para. 9.4 of the Committee’s Views.