CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019 may be in violation of article 6 of the Covenant even if such threats and situations do not result in the loss of life.36 The Committee considers that such threats may include adverse climate change impacts and recalls that environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy the right to life. 37 The Committee recalls that States parties should take all appropriate measures to address the general conditions in society that may give rise to direct threats to the right to life or prevent individuals from enjoying their right to life with dignity.38 8.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s position that the extension of article 6 (1) of the Covenant to a right to life with dignity through general comment No. 36 (2108) is unsupported by the rules of treaty interpretation, with reference to article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). However, the Committee is of the view that the language at issue is compatible with the latter provision, which requires that a treaty be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. In this regard, the Committee notes that under article 31 of the Convention, the context for interpretation of a treaty includes in the first place the text of the treaty, including its preamble and annexes. In the preamble of the Covenant, it is recognized initially that the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and it is also recognized that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person. While the State party notes that socioeconomic entitlements are protected under a separate Covenant, the Committee observes that the preamble of the present Covenant recognizes that the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy their civil and political rights, as well as their economic, social and cultural rights. 8.5 The Committee observes that both it and regional human rights tribunals have established that environmental degradation can compromise effective enjoyment of the right to life and that severe environmental degradation can adversely affect an individual’s wellbeing and lead to a violation of the right to life.39 In the present case, the Committee notes that the Torres Strait Regional Administration, a government agency, recognized in its report entitled “Torres Strait Climate Change Strategy 2014–2018” the vulnerability of the Torres Strait islands to significant and adverse climate change impacts that affect ecosystems and the livelihoods of the islands’ inhabitants.40 The Committee also notes the authors’ claims regarding their islands’ exposure to flood-related damage, sea wall breaches, coral bleaching, increasing temperatures, erosion, reduction of the number of coconut trees and marine life used for food and cultural purposes, and a lack of rain and its effect on crop cultivation (paras. 2.3–2.5 and 5.2). 8.6 The Committee recalls that in certain places, the lack of alternatives to subsistence livelihoods may place individuals at a heightened risk of vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change.41 The Committee takes into account the authors’ argument that the health of their islands is closely tied to their own lives. The Committee notes, however, that while the authors attest to feelings of insecurity engendered by a loss of predictability of seasonal weather patterns, seasonal timing, tides and availability of traditional and culturally important food sources, they have not indicated that they have faced or currently face adverse impacts on their own health or a real and reasonably foreseeable risk of being exposed to a situation of physical endangerment or extreme precarity that could threaten their right to life, including their right to a life with dignity. The Committee also notes that the authors’ claims under article 6 of the Covenant relate mainly to their ability to maintain their culture, which falls under the scope of article 27 of the Covenant. 36 37 38 39 40 41 General comment No. 36 (2018), para. 7. Ibid., para. 62. Ibid., para. 26. Portillo Cáceres et al. v. Paraguay, para. 7.4 and footnotes 45 and 46. Land and Sea Management Unit, Torres Strait Regional Authority, Torres Strait Climate Change Strategy 2014–2018, July 2014. Teitiota v. New Zealand, para. 9.9. 13