CRC/C/88/D/104/2019 expressly recognizes the right to a healthy environment, that article 43 recognizes the “acción de amparo ambiental” (environmental writ of amparo), and that the General Environment Act contains several provisions that enable actions in environmental matters (as the “acción de recomposición del daño ambiental colectivo” – writ of redress for collective environmental damage). It argues that the abundant favourable jurisprudence demonstrates the effectiveness of these domestic remedies, recalling in particular the environmental jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Lastly, regarding the alleged difficulties that the authors would have in accessing the justice system due to their status as children, the State party argues that the Office of the Chief Public Defender and the Office of the Ombudsperson for the Rights of Children and Adolescents have the mandate to provide free legal aid and representation to children in environmental litigation. In conclusion, the State party claims that the authors’ conduct has prevented it from the possibility of providing a remedy to the issue at the domestic level, as provided by article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 25 November 2020, the authors provided their comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication. They maintain that the communication is admissible and reiterate their arguments that the Committee has jurisdiction to examine the complaint, that the complaint is sufficiently substantiated and that the pursuit of domestic remedies would be futile. 5.2 The authors note the State party’s argument that the communication should be found inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. They argue that the Committee is competent to examine the communication as the State party has effective control over economic activities in its territory that result in the emission of greenhouse gases. Those emissions contribute to violations of the authors’ rights caused by climate change. The authors refer to their initial submission and reiterate their argument that a State’s extraterritorial obligations are not confined to the narrow circumstances of territorial or personal control cited by the State party. Extraterritorial obligations also arise when a State controls activities in its territory that cause direct and foreseeable transboundary harm. They argue that it is indisputable that the State party has the effective ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in its territory. The State party has failed to use its maximum available resources to curb emissions in line with the Paris Agreement target of controlling temperature rise at or below 1.5°C. The State party’s emissions are not the sole cause of climate change, but they are a contributing cause, which only the State party can mitigate. As to the specific question of causation, namely, whether climate change, to which the State party is contributing, has caused an actual or imminent violation of the rights of each author, the authors argue that this is a merits issue. At the admissibility phase, they have presented substantiated allegations of the actual and imminent violations of their rights to life and health and their cultural rights that are caused by climate change. The authors also argue that the violations of their rights are entirely foreseeable. For decades, climate scientists have been warning that unchecked emissions will have a direct effect on children around the world. In 1990, in its first report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned the international community that without sufficient emission reductions, global warming would cause the very same adverse climate impacts that now harm and threaten the authors, from the spread of malaria and deadly wildfires to rising seas engulfing atolls.5 5.3 Regarding the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis, the authors argue that the State party continues to permit and promote excess emissions that are contributing to dangerous climate change, and that it will continue doing so unless it reduces its emissions as soon as possible, in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The effect of the State party’s pre-2015 greenhouse gas emissions will also continue to impair the authors’ rights for the rest of their childhoods and beyond, making these continuing violations within the meaning of article 7 (g) of the Optional Protocol. 5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Policymaker summary of Working Group II (potential impacts of climate change)” (1990), pp. 88, 102–103 and 107–08. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_II_spm.pdf. 5