CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017 involved in the incident further underscores the potential legal responsibility – albeit under domestic law – of Italian officials vis-à-vis the victims of the incident. Consequently, the Committee finds that it is not precluded by article 1 of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 7.9 The Committee notes the claims of the authors about the long duration of the domestic investigation in Italy, and it observes that it has not been contested by the State party that no further domestic remedies are available to the authors. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 7.10 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated the claims under articles 6 and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the claims by the authors that the State party violated their relatives’ rights under article 6 (1) of the Covenant owing to the State party’s negligent acts and omissions in the rescue activities at sea, which endangered their relatives’ lives and resulted in their death or disappearance. The Committee notes, however, the State party’s claims that in the present case, it was the responsibility of the Maltese rescue centre and that the Italian naval vessel ITS Libra did intervene in the rescue operation, even before a formal request had been received from Malta, that the ITS Libra became the focal point of the rescue operations and that it saved many lives. 8.3 The Committee notes that the right to life includes an obligation for States parties to adopt any appropriate laws or other measures in order to protect life from all reasonably foreseeable threats.10 It also notes that such due diligence requires taking reasonable, positive measures that do not impose disproportionate burdens on States parties in response to reasonably foreseeable threats to life.11 8.4 In the present case, the authors maintain that the Italian authorities have failed to respond promptly to the initial distress call, and have greatly delayed the dispatch of the ITS Libra towards the vessel in distress. They further claim that the naval ship was ordered to move further away from the vessel in distress because, had it been identified by Maltese patrol boats, the latter would have avoided taking charge of the rescue operation. The Committee also notes the authors’ claim that, had the Italian authorities directed in good time the ITS Libra and other coast guard boats to rescue the persons on board the vessel, those boats would have reached the vessel before it sank. The Committee notes, however, that the State party claims to have informed the Maltese authorities of the distress call promptly and that it advised the callers from the vessel in distress to establish direct contact with the Maltese rescue centre. Furthermore, it notes the State party’s claim that 23 rescue operations were carried out simultaneously on the day of the shipwreck in question, and that the ITS Libra was dispatched to the vessel in distress even before having been notified that the vessel had capsized. 8.5 The Committee notes that the principal responsibility for the rescue operation lies with Malta, since the vessel capsized in its search and rescue area, and since it undertook in writing responsibility for the search and rescue operation. The Committee, however, considers that the State party has not provided a clear explanation for what appears to be a failure to promptly respond to the distress call, prior to the assumption of responsibility for the search and rescue operation by the Maltese authorities. It also notes that the State party has not provided any information about measures taken by State party authorities to ascertain that the Maltese rescue centre was informed of the exact location of the vessel in distress and that 10 11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36, para. 18. Ibid., para. 21. 9