CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 8.8 In the present case, the Committee notes that the authors and other members of the community exercise the right to enjoy their culture through a way of life that is closely linked with their territory and the use of the natural resources found therein. The Committee also notes that the large-scale fumigation with toxic agrochemicals presents a threat which the State party could reasonably have foreseen. Not only were the competent State authorities notified of the activities and their impact on the community members, but the prosecutor’s office found that the acts fully met the definition of the offence (para. 2.23) and the accused themselves acknowledged their liability (para. 2.21). Yet, the State party did not put a stop to the activities, thus allowing the continued contamination of the rivers in which the authors fish, draw their water, bathe and wash their clothing, the further death of their livestock, a source of food, and the ongoing destruction of their crops and the resources in the forest where they forage and hunt. The Committee further notes that the State party has not provided an alternative explanation of what happened or demonstrated having taken any steps whatsoever to protect the right of the authors and other community members to their cultural life. The Committee accordingly finds that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 27 of the Covenant with regard to the Campo Agua’ẽ indigenous community. 8.9 Lastly, the Committee notes the authors’ claim that the facts also constitute a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 17 and 27, on the grounds that there was no effective judicial remedy to protect them from the violations that they had reported. In particular, the authors pointed out that, although the authorities had sufficient evidence to determine a causal link between the farms’ illegal use of toxic agrochemicals and the adverse effects on the community’s health and the integrity of the territory – which led the prosecutor’s office to initiate criminal proceedings – the criminal investigation launched in 2009 has not been completed, the evidence requested by the Public Prosecution Service has not been obtained, the unlawful fumigation has continued, in breach of national law, and no reparation has been provided, even though, having acknowledged their liability, the accused requested a conditional suspension of proceedings that could have led to a reparations agreement. Moreover, in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Public Prosecution Service did not engage a technical consultant specializing in indigenous issues, who would have sought to ensure that the investigation included a cultural diversity perspective and that it documented the specific impact of the violation on the community members. Therefore, the Committee is of the view that, more than 12 years after the authors filed their criminal complaint regarding the fumigation with toxic agrochemicals, to which they have continued to be exposed throughout this period, the investigations have not progressed in any meaningful way and the State party has not justified the delay or enabled the making of reparations, in violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 17 and 27. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 17 and 27 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 10. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide an effective remedy. In that connection, the State party should: (a) conduct an effective and exhaustive investigation of the facts, keeping the authors appropriately informed; (b) initiate criminal and administrative proceedings against the alleged perpetrators and, if they are found guilty, impose appropriate penalties; (c) make full reparation to the authors and other members of the community for the harm caused, including appropriate compensation and reimbursement of legal costs; and (d) take all necessary measures, in close consultation with the community, to repair the environmental damage. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 14 GE.22-15010