CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019 Annex IV [English only] Individual opinion of Committee member Gentian Zyberi (concurring) 1. I am generally in agreement with the Committee’s findings.1 In this individual opinion, I explain my position on adaptation and mitigation measures, the law on international responsibility for countering climate change effects and adequate measures, and the violation of article 27. 2. After having acknowledged climate change as a common concern of humankind in the preamble to the 2015 Paris Agreement, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change address mitigation and adaptation under, respectively, articles 4 and 7 of the Agreement. Mitigation efforts are aimed at addressing the causes of climate change by preventing or reducing the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Adaptation efforts are aimed towards adjusting to the current and future effects of climate change. Both types of measures are intrinsically connected and require action by States (and non-State actors), individually and jointly through international cooperation. 3. The State party in this case has taken both mitigation and adaptation measures. When it comes to mitigation measures, assessing the nationally determined contributions taken by States parties to the International Protocol on Civil and Political Rights under the 2015 Paris Agreement, when the State is party to both treaties, is an important starting point. States are under a positive obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the protection of human rights. In this context, the due diligence standard requires States to set their national climate mitigation targets at the level of their highest possible ambition and to pursue effective domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving those targets.2 When a State is found to not have fulfilled these commitments, such a finding should constitute grounds for satisfaction for the complainants, while the State concerned should be required to step up its efforts and prevent similar violations in the future. The requirement of due diligence applies also to adaptation measures. 4. It has been 30 years since, at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) States recognized climate change as a cause for common concern and action, but despite important developments in the context of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 2015 Paris Agreement, individual and joint State efforts at addressing the climate crisis remain insufficient. 3 Over the years, the law on international responsibility on climate change has developed progressively.4 5. A clear limitation of the law on international responsibility in cases of climate change and related litigation is the difficulty involved in addressing what constitutes shared responsibility. 5 Since it is the atmospheric accumulation of carbon dioxide and other 1 2 3 4 5 On article 6, the Committee follows largely its reasoning in Teitiota v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016), para. 9.12. Paris Agreement, arts. 4 (3) and 4 (2). For more information on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and related documents and activities, see https://unfccc.int. See, e.g., Christina Voigt, “State responsibility for damages associated with climate change”, in Research Handbook on Climate Change Law and Loss & Damage, Meinhard Douelle and Sara L. Seck, eds. (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021). See, e.g., article 47 of the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts and related commentary, adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session (2001); and André Nollkaemper and others, “Guiding principles on shared responsibility in 23