CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 5.7 The authors repeat their claim of a violation of article 17 stemming from the State party’s failure to discharge its duty to provide protection in connection with the spraying of agrochemicals, which have had a negative impact on the community’s privacy and home. They submit that the facts of the case do relate to the community representatives, as they belong to the Ava Guarani people, live in the community and are themselves victims along with the other members of the community. They also submit that, by not taking action to obtain the 15 pieces of evidence requested by the Public Prosecution Service and by disputing the report on traces of glyphosate without providing corroborating evidence of its position, the State party cannot defend itself by arguing a lack of evidence. The burden of proof does not lie solely with the authors of the communication given that they do not enjoy the same access to evidence as the State party, especially as members of an indigenous community living in extreme poverty. 5.8 In response to the State party’s observations regarding article 27 of the Covenant, the authors recall that they, in their capacity as leader and teacher, have a personal responsibility towards the community to ensure the intergenerational transmission of the culture. They reaffirm that the State party has an international responsibility for the serious environmental damage that has undermined the group’s cultural integrity. 5.9 Lastly, the authors repeat their claims regarding the violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, noting that, at the time of submission of their comments, it had been ten years since the start of proceedings domestically. State party’s additional observations 6. On 16 June 2020, the State party repeated its argument that the authors’ attempt to claim collective rights is at odds with the Covenant. It also reiterated its position that the content of articles 17 and 27 of the Covenant were not referred to in the course of the domestic remedies sought and that the criminal proceedings initiated by the authors did not constitute an appropriate remedy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds that domestic remedies were not exhausted, as articles 17 and 27 of the Covenant were not invoked at the domestic level – where the claims centred around environmental issues – and that the criminal remedy sought by the authors was not the appropriate course of action. The Committee also notes the authors’ arguments that (a) the criminal remedy was the most appropriate avenue to pursue; (b) the essence of their claims to the Committee was also invoked before the national courts; (c) a complaint was lodged with the competent administrative body; and (d) neither the civil possessory action nor the remedy of amparo would have been appropriate. 7.4 First, the Committee notes that the State party’s objection to admissibility on grounds of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies appears to be linked to a claim of inadmissibility ratione materiae on account of the fact that environmental rights are not in the scope of the Covenant. The Committee also notes, however, that the authors are not claiming a violation of the right to a healthy environment but rather violations of their rights to privacy, family life, cultural life and an effective remedy and that they are doing so because the State party has failed in its obligation to protect those rights, which, in the case at hand, would entail 10 GE.22-15010