CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In its observations dated 16 August 2016, the State party considers that the communication is without merit, for the reasons it previously stated. The State party acknowledges that the right to life is the supreme right under the Covenant from which no derogation is permitted, and that it should not be interpreted narrowly. States parties are required to adopt positive measures to protect the right to life. However, the complainant has not provided evidence to substantiate his claim that he faces actual or imminent harm. In its jurisprudence, the Committee has found inadmissible claims based on hypothetical violations of Covenant rights that might occur in the future. 4 The Committee has also found inadmissible claims where the author lacks victim status due to a failure to demonstrate that either an act or an omission of a State party has already adversely affected his or her enjoyment of the right in question, or that such an effect is imminent. 5 In addition, the Committee found unsubstantiated the non-refoulement claim of an author who presented general allegations of a risk of arbitrary arrest and detention that could ultimately lead to torture and death, but who acknowledged that he had not experienced any direct threat to his life.6 6.2 In addition, the State party considers that there is no evidence that the authors now face an imminent risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life following their return to Kiribati. The communication does not present a situation analogous to the facts in Bleier Lewenhoff and Valino de Bleier v. Uruguay. In that case, the Committee determined that, because further clarification of the case depended on information exclusively in the hands of the State party, the author’s allegations were substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanations to the contrary submitted by the State party. 7 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 The author presented further comments on 29 December 2016. He claims that during the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the State party endorsed the findings of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 8 The Report describes a rise in sea level of at least 0.7 m for developing countries in the Pacific Ocean, and the resulting loss of rainfall and incursion of salt water into underground freshwater lenses and aquifers. Thus, it appears that the State party has opened the door to accepting the legal concept of a climate change refugee in cases where an individual faces a risk of serious harm. For climate change refugees, the risk of serious harm arises from environmental factors indirectly caused by humans, rather than from violent acts. 7.2 The author faces an intermediate risk of serious harm in Kiribati, which is losing land mass and can be expected to survive as a country for 10 to 15 more years. The author appealed the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal because he disagreed with the Tribunal’s determination as to the time frame within which serious harm to the author would occur. The author states that the expert report he provided to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal confirms his claims. 7.3 The author’s life, along with the lives of his wife and children, will be at risk as the effects of climate change worsen. The evidence and compelling photographs provided by the climate change expert, John Corcoran, were largely ignored by the domestic authorities. 4 5 6 7 8 The State party cites V.M.R.B. v. Canada (CCPR/C/33/D/236/1987), para. 6.3. The State party cites Beydon et al. v. France, para. 4.3. The State party cites Z.H. v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 8.4. For the purpose of comparison, the State party also cites Young-kwan Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/112/D/2179/2012), in which the Committee considered the authors’ claims to be sufficiently substantiated and therefore admissible. Human Rights Committee, Bleier Lewenhoff and Valino de Bleier v. Uruguay, communication No. 30/1978, para. 13.3. The author provides a copy of Overseas Development Institute and Climate and Development Knowledge Network, “The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report: what’s in it for small island developing States?” (2014). 7