CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019 Article 2 3.3 The State party has failed to adopt laws or other measures necessary to give effect to the authors’ Covenant rights, including those under articles 6, 17, 24 and 27 of the Covenant. Article 6 3.4 In violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant, the State party has failed to prevent a foreseeable loss of life from the impacts of climate change,8 and to protect the authors’ right to life with dignity. The State party has not taken adaptation and mitigation measures, has not provided resources to adopt measures identified as necessary by the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the Torres Strait Regional Authority, and has not met its obligations under the Paris Agreement. The State party has failed to respect the authors’ right to a healthy environment, which is part of the right to life. 9 The State party must devote maximum available resources and all appropriate means to reducing emissions in order to comply with its obligations under article 6 of the Covenant. Article 27 3.5 The authors’ minority culture depends on the continued existence and habitability of their islands and on the ecological health of the surrounding seas. 10 Climate change already compromises the authors’ traditional way of life and threatens to displace them from their islands. Such displacement would result in the infliction of egregious and irreparable harm with respect to their ability to enjoy their culture. Article 17 3.6 Climate change already affects the private, family and home life of the authors, who face the prospect of having to abandon their homes within the lifetime of community members who are currently alive (including the authors). The State party has failed to take any or adequate adaptation and mitigation measures. When climate change threatens disruption to privacy, family and the home, States must prevent serious interference with the privacy, family and home of individuals under their jurisdiction. Article 24 (1) 3.7 The State party has failed to take adequate steps to protect the rights of future generations of the authors’ community, including the six above-mentioned children, who are the most vulnerable and affected by climate change. The future of their survival and culture is uncertain. Future generations, including the children named in the complaint, have a fundamental right to a stable climate system capable of sustaining human life, based on children’s right to a healthy environment. Yessie Mosby fears that his children will have to live on another person’s land and will not have anything reserved for themselves or their children, as the Masigalgal culture will be extinct. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its submission of 29 May 2020, the State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible. The alleged violations of international climate change treaties such as the Paris Agreement and other international treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are inadmissible, ratione materiae, because they are outside the scope of the present Covenant. Moreover, there is no basis for the authors’ argument that international climate change treaties are relevant to the interpretation of the Covenant, because there are stark and significant differences between the Paris Agreement and the Covenant. The two instruments have different aims and scopes. Sixteen States that have signed the Agreement have not signed the Covenant. Accordingly, interpreting the Covenant through the Paris Agreement would be contrary to the fundamental principles of 8 9 10 4 The Hague Court of Appeal, Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands, Case No. 200.178.245/01, Judgment, 9 October 2018. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, 15 February 2017, para. 59. For example, Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada (CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984), paras. 32.2 and 33.