CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 waterways,5 roads6 and settlements,7 in order to prevent contamination. In breach of domestic legislation, both farms have failed to put in place any protective barriers and yet spray toxic agrochemicals on their crops on the land leading right up to the houses, the community school (even during school hours) and the road leading to the community, as well as near the Curuguaty, Jejuí and Lucio-cue rivers – which run through the farms before reaching the community – where the community members draw their water, fish, bathe and wash their clothes. The farms use legal agrochemicals, but do not fulfil their registration obligation (para. 2.6); they also use banned agrochemicals (para. 2.27) and glyphosate (whose harmful effects are currently being discussed by the scientific community).8 2.6 The farms’ actions can be explained by the failure of the State, as the entity responsible for overseeing the use, commercialization, distribution, export, import and transport of phytosanitary products for agricultural use, to fulfil its obligation to authorize and monitor those activities. In particular, controlled agrochemicals (categorized as “red stripe” because of their high or extreme toxicity), as well as the people who use them, must be registered with the National Plant and Seed Quality and Health Service.9 This organization is also responsible for verifying that the products being used have been authorized by a technical adviser registered with it and that farms maintain the required hedges and buffer zones. 2.7 The authors recall that the situation they face has already been observed by various United Nations human rights treaty bodies and non-treaty mechanisms. As early as 2007, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted with concern that the expansion of soybean cultivation had fostered the indiscriminate use of toxic agrochemicals, leading to deaths and illnesses, contamination of the water supply and the disappearance of ecosystems, while it had jeopardized the traditional food resources of the affected communities. It therefore requested the State party to ensure compliance with current environmental laws. 10 In 2010, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its concern at the negative consequences of agro-toxic fumigation faced by peasant families. 11 In 2011, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women requested the State party to undertake a study of the misuse of toxic agrochemicals and eradicate their impact on the health of women and their children.12 In 2012, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights noted that the expansion of soybean monoculture and the abuse and lack of oversight of agrochemicals was seriously endangering the environment and the health of indigenous communities and that the State had taken absolutely no action, thereby putting at grave risk the lives of the people whose homes were surrounded by soybean plantations, especially in Canindeyú.13 Consequences of the contamination 2.8 The large-scale fumigation conducted by both farms is reducing the biodiversity of the indigenous territory and destroying the natural resources that are not only a source of food 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GE.22-15010 Decree No. 18831/86 establishes the obligation to leave a treed buffer zone of at least 100 metres in the vicinity of rivers, streams, water sources and lakes. Decree No. 2048/04 on protective hedges along roads stipulates that such hedges must be at least 5 metres wide and 2 metres high and be composed of dense foliage. In the absence of such hedges, there must be a 50-metre buffer zone where no pesticides are used. Decision No. 485/03 requires a 100-metre buffer zone between areas where pesticides are used and human settlements, schools, health-care facilities, places of worship and public spaces. F. Adams et al., “Diagnóstico de la presencia de glifosato en arroyos superficiales de los departamentos de Canindeyú y San Pedro” (testing for glyphosate in surface streams in the departments of Canindeyú and San Pedro), Nuestra Señora de la Asunción Catholic University and the National Schools of Geology and Agronomy at the National Polytechnic Institute of Lorraine (France). Act No. 3742/2009 on the oversight of phytosanitary products for agricultural use; Act No. 123/91 on new forms of Phytosanitary protection, and Decision No. 388/2008 of the National Plant and Seed Quality and Health Service. E/C.12/PRY/CO/3, paras. 16 and 27. CRC/C/PRY/CO/3, para. 50. CEDAW/C/PRY/CO/6, para. 33. A/HRC/20/25/Add.2, paras. 47–48. 3