CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 Annex II [Original: English] Joint opinion of Committee members Photini Pazartzis and Gentian Zyberi (partially dissenting) 1. The Committee has found that the information before it discloses a violation of articles 17 and 27 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (para. 9 of the Views). We are in full agreement with the finding of a violation of article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, given the State party’s lack of due diligence in pursuing the criminal complaint submitted in October 2009 regarding the health problems experienced by the Campo Agua’ẽ indigenous community after every fumigation carried out without adequate environmental protection (paras. 2.11–2.26 of the Views) and the administrative complaint lodged, not long after, with the National Plant and Seed Quality and Health Service (SENAVE) relating to harm caused by the misuse of agrochemicals (paras. 2.27–2.29 of the Views). 2. The claim concerning the violation of article 27, however, should have been declared inadmissible by the Committee for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or, alternatively, for not being sufficiently substantiated. The authors claim a violation of article 27 because of the loss of the necessary conditions to preserve the community’s culture (para. 3.8 of the Views). From the information submitted to the Committee, however, it does not appear that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies. 3. Even if domestic remedies could be considered exhausted, as arguably generally subsumed under the claim concerning a violation of article 17, there is an additional problem concerning sufficient substantiation. The authors submit that the serious environmental damage caused by the fumigation has had severe repercussions amounting to a negation of the right to enjoy their culture (para. 8.5 of the Views). However, what seems established is that the authors’ homes and school were within 10 metres of soyabean plantations and that the protective hedges required by law to avoid the negative effects of fumigation had not been planted (para. 2.14 of the Views). Notably, no (chemical) survey has been conducted in the community to collect water, blood and urine samples to determine whether the level of chemicals used for fumigation exceeded the maximum levels allowed (para. 2.15 of the Views) and their exact overall effect on the community. 4. In our view, based on the limited information before it, the Committee was not in a position to find a violation of article 27. That said, the State party has to address environmental and other complaints with the necessary due diligence and with adequate consideration for the rights of indigenous communities. 1 1 18 See, e.g., CCPR/C/PRY/CO/3, paras. 27–28; and CCPR/C/PRY/CO/4, paras. 44–45. GE.22-15010