CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019 jurisprudence unequivocally notes that no derogation is permitted from article 6. 4 Moreover, it clarifies the direct connection between environmental harms, the right to life and the right to live with dignity;5 and that State parties must duly consider the precautionary approach on climate change.6 Given the urgency and permanence of climate change, the need to adhere to the precautionary approach is imperative. In addition, the singular focus on the future obscures consideration of the harms being experienced by the authors, which negatively impact their right to a life with dignity in the present. The unfortunate outcome is that the Committee’s jurisprudence promises far more than the majority delivers. 6. While we agree that the State party is not solely responsible for climate change, the main question before the Committee is significantly narrower: has the State party violated the Covenant by failing to implement adaptation and/or mitigation measures to combat the adverse impacts of climate change within its territory, resulting in harms to the authors? The majority opinion relies on projects initiated by the State party since 2019, which might be completed by 2023 (see para. 8.7). While these measures help build climate change resilience, the majority does not sufficiently consider the violations of article 6 that had already occurred at the time of the filing of this communication. Indeed, promises of future projects are insufficient remedies, as they have not yet occurred, whereas damage to the foundation of the authors’ homes has already occurred. Soil where the authors grow food for subsistence has already been eroded, and crops have been lost. These violations are a direct result of flooding which could have been prevented by adaptation measures, including the timely construction of a sea wall to protect the islands where the authors live. Indeed, in its 2014 report, the Torres Strait Regional Authority concluded that Australia had yet to take any steps on 33 out of the 34 adaptation measures suggested. 7. The State party has a positive obligation to minimize “reasonably foreseeable threats to life”7 and should remedy these violations by implementing adaptation measures including those identified by the Torres Strait Regional Authority in 2019. Despite multiple requests and knowledge of the ongoing impacts on the lives of the authors, the State party did not take adaptation measures in a timely manner. Consequently, we would find that the State party violated the authors’ right to life under article 6 of the Covenant in addition to being responsible for the violations found by the majority. 4 5 6 7 26 General comment No. 36 (2108), para. 2. Ibid., para. 62. Ibid., paras. 62 and 64. Ibid., para. 21.