CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019 international law.11 The ordinary meaning of one treaty cannot be used to override the clear language of the Covenant.12 4.2 The authors have not substantiated their claim that they are victims of violations within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 13 There is no evidence that the authors face any current or imminent threat of a violation of any of the rights they have invoked.14 Moreover, the authors have not shown any meaningful causation or connection between the alleged violations of their rights and the State party’s measures or alleged failure to take measures. To demonstrate victim status, the authors must show that an act or omission by the State party has already adversely affected their enjoyment of a right under the Covenant or that such an effect is imminent. By their own admission, the authors have not met that test. It is not possible, under the rules of State responsibility under international law, to attribute climate change to Australia. Relying on the Committee’s position in Teitiota v. New Zealand, the State party asserts that the authors invoke a risk that has not yet materialized.15 4.3 The authors’ claims are also without merit. None of the alleged failures to take mitigation measures fall within the scope of the Covenant. It is not possible under international human rights law to attribute climate change to the State party. 16 It is not possible as a legal matter to trace causal links between the State party’s contribution to climate change, its efforts to address climate change and the alleged effects of climate change on the enjoyment of the authors’ rights. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that “it is virtually impossible to disentangle the complex causal relationships linking historical greenhouse gas emissions of a particular country with a specific climate change-related effect, let alone with the range of direct and indirect implications for human rights” and that “it is often impossible to establish the extent to which a concrete climate change-related event with implications for human rights is attributable to global warming”.17 4.4 The authors’ claims with respect to adaptation measures are also without merit, as the authors have yet to suffer the alleged adverse effects of climate change, if at all, and such alleged violations are not imminent. 4.5 The State party describes in detail the adaptation and mitigation measures it is taking with respect to climate change.18 The Torres Strait Regional Authority coordinates climate change programmes and policies for the benefit of the region and its communities. It consists of both an elected arm of 20 Torres Strait islanders and Aboriginal representatives from the region and an administrative arm comprising a chief executive officer and staff who implement and manage Regional Authority programmes. To respond to coastal management and climate change issues in the Torres Strait, the Regional Authority established a committee from 2006 to 2013, which included representatives from the communities worst affected by coastal erosion and inundation, including Boigu, Warraber, Masig and Poruma, State and federal agencies and various research institutions. The committee enabled a wholeof-government coordinated response to coastal and climate change issues in the Torres Strait region and secured funds to progress identified priority coastal works. The State party describes in detail the Torres Strait Climate Strategy 2014–2018, and the Torres Strait Regional Adaptation and Resilience Plan 2016–2021. The Regional Authority continues to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 31 (3) (c). Ibid. The State party argues both that the communication is insufficiently substantiated and that the authors lack victim status. For example, E.W. et al. v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/47/D/429/1990), para. 6.4. Teitiota v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016), para. 9.12. See the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10)), draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, article 4 (chap. IV.E.1). A/HRC/10/61, para. 70. The State party provides extensive information in its submission regarding its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 5