CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 but also the origin of ancestral cultural practices related to hunting, fishing, woodland foraging and Guarani agroecology. The situation of extreme poverty in which the community lives, without electricity, drinking water, sanitation services or a health-care facility, was made worse by the destruction of its natural resources. 2.9 Furthermore, after every fumigation, obvious symptoms of poisoning (diarrhoea, vomiting, respiratory problems and headaches) appear among the community, including in children, as fumigation is undertaken mere metres from their school during school hours. Their water sources, namely the Curuguaty, Jejuí and Lucio-cue rivers, are being polluted generally. 2.10 In addition, after the rains, when the contaminated water trickles down from the plantations, farm animals (chickens and ducks) die, and crops (corn, cassava and sweet potato) suffer. More generally, fruit trees stop yielding fruit and colonies of forest bees die off in large numbers. Criminal complaint 2.11 On 30 October 2009, the authors filed a criminal complaint with the Environmental Crimes Unit of Curuguaty regarding the health problems they experience after every fumigation. 2.12 On 3 November 2009, the prosecutor’s office notified the Criminal Court of Curuguaty that it had launched an investigation (file No. 1303/09, “Enquiry into an alleged punishable environmental offence – abuse of agrochemicals”). On 5 November 2009, it also notified the National Plant and Seed Quality and Health Service of the investigation. 2.13 On 17 November 2009, officials from the prosecutor’s office travelled to the indigenous territory, interviewed members of the community and toured the borders of the territory, where they observed that the community was indeed surrounded by two farms engaged in intensive soybean cultivation only a few metres from homes and the school and that there were no protective hedges.14 2.14 On 27 November 2009, the prosecutor travelled to the community to verify the findings and observed that the homes and school were within 10 metres of soybean plantations and that the protective hedges had not been planted. Having made her way to the front gate of the farms, she also requested to see the farms’ environmental licences, which the managers were unable to produce, arguing that they were held by their superiors, who lived in Brazil.15 2.15 On 24 May 2010, the prosecutor’s office requested that environmental technicians conduct a chemical survey in the community, to include the collection of water, blood and urine samples. Due to a processing error, the technical unit returned the request to the prosecutor’s office. In the absence of any follow-up, no testing was conducted. 2.16 On 3 August 2010, the authors requested that those responsible be charged with violations of article 203 of the Criminal Code, on collective risks arising from the spraying of toxic substances, the Environmental Offences Act (No. 716/96) and the articles of the Constitution that safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples. They claimed that the fumigation infringed their rights to life, integrity and health and caused the loss of livestock, communal crops, fruit trees and hunting and fishing resources. 2.17 On 9 August 2010, having gathered sufficient evidence of breaches of environmental law, the prosecutor’s office pressed charges against the owners of the farms and set a sixmonth deadline for the conduct of the pre-indictment investigation. 2.18 On 2 October 2010, the authors filed a complaint as joint plaintiffs. They claimed a violation of their right to adequate food (due to the death of their chickens and ducks caused by contaminated water and to the loss of their subsistence crops and fruit trees), their right to water (since they drew their water from contaminated rivers) and their right to health. They 14 15 4 File No. 1303/09, p. 5. Ibid., pp. 6–7. GE.22-15010