CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 enforcing environmental standards. 33 Specifically, the authors’ complaint at the domestic level was that fumigation carried out without State oversight had caused the death of their chickens and ducks, the loss of their subsistence crops and fruit trees, the disappearance of hunting, fishing and foraging resources and the contamination of waterways, as well as harm to their health; and that all of this had led to the disintegration of the community. Consequently, the Committee is of the opinion that article 3 of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication, which it is free to examine because, in the specific circumstances of the case, the foregoing relates to the substance of articles 17 and 27 of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee is also of the opinion that, in accordance with the State party’s legislation, in particular the Criminal Code and Act No. 716/96, the criminal remedy sought by the authors was the appropriate remedy, as demonstrated by the fact that the prosecutor’s office launched an investigation and pressed charges against the owners of the farms, that the court admitted those charges and that the prosecutor’s office twice submitted an indictment, noting that “the act fully meets the definition of the offence”. The authors also lodged an administrative complaint with the National Plant and Seed Quality and Health Service. In a very similar case, the Committee found that neither the complaint filed with the Secretariat for the Environment nor the remedy of amparo had been effective and further noted that a civil action would not have been so either. 34 Given that more than 10 years have passed without significant progress being made on the case or the State party providing any justification for the delay, the Committee finds the communication admissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication may be found admissible only with regard to the authors, not to the community. The Committee also notes the argument of the authors, who are acting on their own behalf and as representatives of the other members of their community, that indigenous groups are collective rights holders. 7.7 Recalling its decision on admissibility in the case submitted by the President of the Sami Parliament on her own behalf and that of the Sami people of Finland, 35 the Committee does not see any obstacle to the consideration of the present communication with regard not only to the authors, but also to the other members of the Campo Agua’ẽ indigenous community, on whose behalf Mr. Oliveira Pereira is authorized to act, according to domestic legislation (paras. 2.2 and 4.7 of the present communication), and on whose behalf both authors are authorized to act before the Committee, in keeping with the power of attorney signed by the community. 7.8 The admissibility requirements having been met and the authors’ claims based on articles 2 (3), 17 and 27 of the Covenant having been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of a finding of admissibility, the Committee declares the communication to be admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that the facts of the present case constitute a violation of article 17 on the grounds that their livestock, crops, fruit trees and hunting, fishing and foraging resources are elements of their private life, family life and home and that the lack of State oversight of the agricultural activity at the source of the pollution – which has poisoned their waterways, destroyed their subsistence crops, killed their livestock, caused the mass extinction of fish, bees and prey and triggered health problems – therefore constitutes arbitrary interference with their privacy, family life and home. The authors specify that, in the case of indigenous peoples, the notions of “home” and “privacy” should be understood within the context of the special relationship indigenous peoples have with their 33 34 35 GE.22-15010 Portillo Cáceres et al. v. Paraguay, para. 6.3. Ibid., paras. 6.5 and 7.9. Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (CCPR/C/119/D/2668/2015), para. 8.5. 11