CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019 Annex II [English only] Individual opinion of Committee member Duncan Laki Muhumuza (dissenting) 1. The Committee found that there was no violation of article 6 of the Covenant based on the information provided by the State party. 2. I have comprehensively perused the information provided by both the authors and the State party and I am convinced that there is a violation of article 6 of the Covenant, which states that: “Every human being has the inherent right to life … protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 3. The Committee found that there was no violation of article 6 by the State party based on the information provided by the State party. The Committee considered the information provided by the State party insofar as adaptative measures were put in place to reduce the existing vulnerabilities and build resilience to climate change-related harms to the islands and it was on those grounds that the Committee found that there was no violation of article 6. 4. I am cognizant of the adaptive measures that the State party has taken under the Torres Strait sea walls programme (2019–2023), and, in this regard, that: (a) Multiple infrastructures will be constructed and upgraded to address ongoing coastal erosion and storm surge impacts on Poruma, Warraber, Masig, Boigu and Iama; (b) By 2022, several coastal mitigation works had been completed on Boigu with funding of $A 15 million, as well as the construction of a 1,022 metre-long wave return wall, the raising and extension of an existing bund wall to 450 metres and the upgrading of stormwater drainage infrastructure; (c) Coastal mitigation works on Poruma, Warraber and Masig were scheduled to begin in 2021 or 2022 and to be completed by 2023. 5. While these efforts and measures taken and/or yet to be taken are commendable and appreciated, there has been an outcry from the authors that has not been addressed and hence the authors’ right to life will continue, appallingly, to be violated and their lives endangered. 6. I am of the considered view that the State party has failed to prevent a foreseeable loss of life from the impact of climate change. As highlighted by the Urgenda Foundation v. the State of Netherlands case, 1 the State party is tasked with an obligation to prevent a foreseeable loss of life from the impacts of climate change, and to protect the authors’ right to life with dignity. 7. In the instant case, the State party has not taken any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cease the promotion of fossil fuel extraction and use, which continue to affect the authors and other islanders and endanger their livelihood, resulting in the violation of their rights under article 6 of the Covenant. 8. The citizens of the Torres Strait islands have also lost their livelihoods on the islands owing to ongoing climate changes and the State party has not taken any measures to mitigate this factor. As a result of the rise in the sea level, saltwater has penetrated the soils of the islands and as a result lands previously used for traditional gardening can no longer be cultivated. The coral bleaching that occurred has led to the disappearance of crayfish which are a fundamental source of food and income for the authors. 9. These factors combined point to the imminent danger or threat posed to people’s lives, which is already affecting their lives; yet, while the State party is aware, it has not taken effective protective measures to enable the people to adapt to climate change. 1 The Hague Court of Appeal, Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands, Case No. 200.178.245/01, Judgment, 9 October 2018. 19