CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 territories. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, article 17 has not been violated because the facts have no personal bearing on the authors and there is no evidence that the agrochemicals reached the territory of the community. 8.3 The Committee notes that the authors and the other members of the Campo Agua’ẽ indigenous community belong to the Ava Guarani people, one of the indigenous peoples recognized in the State party’s Constitution as predating the formation and organization of the State (para. 2.1). The community obtained legal recognition of its traditional territory in 1987 through Presidential Decree No. 21.910. Its homes are located on the edges of the territory; the central part of the territory is made up of forest land, which provides the community with the necessary resources to preserve its cultural identity (para. 2.3). The Committee further notes that the members of the indigenous community, including the authors, depend for their subsistence on crops, livestock, fruit trees, hunting, foraging, fishing and water resources, which are all elements of the territory where they reside and enjoy their privacy. This has not been contested by the State party. The Committee considers that the aforementioned elements are part of the way of life of the authors and other community members, who enjoy a special relationship with their territory,36 and that these elements can be considered to fall within the scope of protection of article 17 of the Covenant.37 In addition, the Committee recalls that article 17 should not be understood as being limited to refraining from arbitrary interference, but rather as covering the obligation to adopt the necessary positive measures to ensure the effective exercise of this right, whether the interference emanates from the State authorities or from natural or legal persons.38 8.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party did not adequately monitor the illegal activities at the source of the contamination, which have been widely documented (para. 2.7), 39 observed by the State party itself (paras. 2.13–2.23)40 and even acknowledged by both of the accused farm owners (para. 2.21). By inadequately monitoring the activities, the State party failed to prevent the contamination. This failure in its duty to provide protection made it possible for the large-scale, illegal fumigation, including with banned agrochemicals, to continue for many years, not only causing health problems among community members – including children, as the fumigation was carried out mere metres from the school during school hours – but also contaminating the community’s waterways, destroying its subsistence crops, killing its livestock and triggering the mass extinction of fish and bees, all basic components of the members’ private life, family life and home. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided an alternative explanation to contradict the alleged causal link between the fumigation with agrochemicals and the aforementioned harm.41 When contamination has direct repercussions on the right to one’s privacy, family life and home, and its consequences are serious, then the degradation of the environment adversely affects the well-being of individuals and constitutes a violation of privacy, family life and the home.42 Consequently, in the light of the information that it has before it, the Committee concludes that the events at issue in the present case disclose a violation of article 17 of the Covenant. 8.5 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that the facts also constitute a violation of article 27. The authors submit that the serious environmental damage caused by the fumigation has had severe repercussions amounting to a negation of the right to enjoy their culture. First, the disappearance of the natural resources needed for their subsistence threatens, in turn, their ancestral practices in the areas of hunting, fishing, woodland foraging and 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 12 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 26 (1); Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 23 (1997), para. 5. Hopu and Bessert v. France, para. 10.3; Portillo Cáceres et al. v. Paraguay, para. 7.8. General comment No. 16 (1988), para. 1. See also Portillo Cáceres et al. v. Paraguay. The presence of plantations adjacent to which no protective hedges had been planted, the illegal disposal of authorized but regulated agrochemicals and the disposal of illegal agrochemicals were observed. The owners of the two farms were charged and later indicted, the acts having fully met the definition of the offence. The Committee also points out that the State party has made few arguments in rebuttal of the authors’ claims. Portillo Cáceres et al. v. Paraguay, para. 7.8. GE.22-15010