CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 particular ways of life and identity, [they] exercise some rights ... from that collective perspective.” 30 The Court thus recognizes indigenous communities as having the legal standing to defend their rights.31 5.3 The foregoing is in line with the general interpretative rules established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as human rights treaties are living instruments whose interpretation is subject to change. Thus, the Covenant should be interpreted in the light of the International Labour Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which stipulate that indigenous persons have rights not only as individuals but also as peoples. The authors assert that the Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 36 (2018), does not consider indigenous peoples as the mere sum of their members (unlike, for instance, members of ethnic or religious minorities). Moreover, the State party’s legislation protects indigenous peoples as rights holders in their own right. 5.4 Regarding the communication’s supposed inadmissibility on the grounds that the authors raised environmental rights at the domestic level rather than articles of the Covenant, the authors note that the arguments they raised at the domestic level are essentially the same as those raised before the Committee. They recall that, in Portillo Cáceres et al. v. Paraguay, the Committee declared itself competent to consider violations of the rights to privacy, family and an effective remedy arising from the State party’s failure to fulfil its positive obligation to protect those rights in situations that, at the domestic level, entailed enforcing environmental standards. The Committee should arrive at the same conclusion in the present case given that the authors are claiming violations of environmental law that affect an indigenous territory and, hence, the group’s home, privacy and cultural life. 5.5 As for the alleged inappropriateness of the criminal remedy, the authors submit that it was the most appropriate remedy – in keeping with article 268 (2) of the Constitution and the provisions on environmental offences contained in Act No. 716/96 and the Criminal Code – because it provided for the inclusion of the widest range of evidence and required that a technical consultant specializing in indigenous issues be assigned to the case. In addition, the authors note that they did file a complaint with the competent administrative body (the National Plant and Seed Quality and Health Service); that civil possessory actions are of little use in defending environmental or cultural rights; that the remedy of amparo has very strict admissibility requirements; that, having applied for the ordinary forms of protection, it was unnecessary to file an extraordinary remedy whose outcome might be fragmented (amparo does not guarantee the punishment of individual offenders or provide for compensation or redress for environmental damage); and that the summary nature of the remedy of amparo does not allow for an exhaustive discussion of the evidence. 5.6 The authors submit that the appropriate remedy would have been to lodge a complaint with an agroenvironmental body. They note that relevant bills have been drafted, the latest of which was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies in October 2016 and is currently under consideration. This bill provides for the establishment of an agroenvironmental entity that would be competent to adjudicate disputes over the protection of the rights of indigenous communities and stipulates that “the effectiveness of an environmental legal safeguard can be guaranteed only through the establishment of an agroenvironmental entity, a code of agricultural and environmental procedure and specialized courts”, as the “traditional model of ordinary proceedings does not meet the criteria for environmental protection”. Therefore, “it is necessary to establish rapid dispute resolution procedures, along with interim measures, taking into account that some environmental damage may be irreversible”.32 The authors submit that a relevant measure that Paraguay could take as a guarantee of non-repetition would be the establishment of an agroenvironmental entity and the adoption of a code of agricultural and environmental procedure. 30 31 32 GE.22-15010 Established jurisprudence since the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, judgment of 27 June 2012, paras. 231 and 341, declarative points 2–4. Advisory opinion No. 22, Entitlement of legal entities to hold rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System, 26 February 2016, para. 72. The bill on the establishment of an agroenvironmental entity and a code of agricultural and environmental procedure of 19 September 2016. 9