CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 Allegations manifestly unfounded 4.21 The State party argues that the communication is manifestly unfounded. The authors’ submissions consist almost entirely of legal pleadings on the interpretation of the Covenant, mainly on article 2, with some very general factual assertions. They do not include any specific information, let alone objective corroborating evidence, about the personal experiences of the individual authors. There is no specific substantiation to establish the effect on the individual authors of the alleged activities on the lands surrounding the village. 4.22 No evidence is provided that the individual authors actually experienced a restriction on their right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence under article 12 (1), and no evidence that such a restriction failed to meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality under article 12 (3). 4.23 Regarding their claims under articles 7 and 17, the authors have provided no evidence to establish that they actually experienced, as they claim, forced eviction from land that is closely tied to housing and integral to the functioning of each household. For example, the authors provided no evidence to substantiate that the alleged evictions from agricultural land actually occurred, or that the individual authors were affected by such evictions. Such evidence would be crucial to substantiate the cultural significance they attach to the alleged evictions and to substantiate the existence of an article 7 violation. 4.24 As to the allegations under article 27, the rights under this provision turn on highly personal facts about the cultural and community experiences of individuals. Allegations without any personal substantiation are thus clearly manifestly unfounded. 4.25 The authors have failed to provide sufficient substantiation in factual support of their pleadings regarding article 2 of the Covenant. They have provided no evidence to substantiate the involvement of Green Park International and Green Mount International in any of the activities at issue and to establish any meaningful connection between Canada and the activities of the two corporations. Furthermore, their claim under article 2 (3) is not based on any particular procedural unfairness; they are simply dissatisfied with the outcome of their proceedings. It is essential that the right to an effective remedy be interpreted in a way that recognizes the continued relevance of the private international law principles governing the jurisdiction of domestic courts in a transnational context. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The authors provided comments on the State party’s observations on 30 September 2014. They argue that the case should be declared admissible and examined on the merits. 5.2 On the issue of standing before the Committee, the authors argue that the communication is brought by the individual authors but also by the Bil’in Village Council, which is the body representing the individuals residing in Bil’in who were affected by the violations of the Covenant. The village itself suffered damages as a result of the construction of the settlement. Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed Abu Rahme was the duly elected representative of the Council, and is included as author because of his capacity to represent the interests of the village. As to the estate of the late Ahmed Issa Abdallah Yassin, it is not included in the communication as a legal entity per se, but rather as a means of representing an individual who is now deceased. The losses he suffered as a result of violations of the Covenant are now acknowledged by his estate. 5.3 The reason the Bil’in Village Council is named as one of the authors is due in part to the collective nature of the relationship between Bil’in village and its land, and thus to ensure that remedies provided through the present communication will include all those individuals suffering a detrimental impact as a result of the violations caused by the two corporations. A majority of the village suffered both economic and cultural damage. The former was caused by the reduced agricultural yield, particularly of olives and olive oil, and the latter by the inability to use the land as a place of community gathering. Furthermore, although the construction began only in February 2005, the Bil’in residents were barred from accessing the land in question beginning 1997, when it was declared “State land” and the authors were evicted from it. 10 GE.17-21900