HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

However, it also noted that the risk must be substantial and imminent. The Tribunal concluded that to uphold its inhabitants’ right to life, the Kiribati government was actively addressing environmental problems by erecting seawalls and supplying drinkable water. The appellant was unable to present proof of any particular actions or inactions on the part of the Kiribati government that would result in an arbitrary taking of life. Furthermore, even if the appellant feared the effects of natural disasters such as storm surges and tidal events, there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that these events happened frequently enough to endanger his family’s lives. 42 The Tribunal also considered the possibility of cruel treatment for Mr Teitiota and his family. Despite their challenges, the Tribunal found that Kiribati’s environmental conditions fell short of what the ICCPR considered cruel treatment. Even if Mr Teitiota’s living level in Kiribati was lower than in New Zealand, it was not severe enough to be regarded as cruel treatment. 43 As a result, the Tribunal rejected the appellant’s claims under the ICCPR after concluding that there was no reasonable danger of him being arbitrarily deprived of Mr Teitiota applied for leave to appeal to the High Court but was refused by the High Court 46 , which left him to apply from the Tribunal’s decision to the Court of Appeal. He raised six legal questions forming the basis of his leave to appeal. The Court mainly focused on questions concerning the protected person status of Mr. Teitiota. Regarding the serious harm, it concurred that there was no evidence Mr. Teitiota faced a real chance of suffering serious physical harm from violence linked to housing, land, and property disputes in Kiribati in the future; there was no evidence to support the contention that Mr. Teitiota was unable to grow food or obtain potable water; and there was no evidence that the environmental conditions Mr. Teitiota faced or was likely to face on return to Kiribati were so dire as to jeopardize his life or mean he and his family could not resume their subsistence life with dignity. 47 his life or subjected to harsh treatment. 44 3.2 The Court of Appeal’s Decision 45

42 Immigration and Protection Tribunal of New Zealand, para. [80] – [92]. 43 Ibid., para. [93] – [95]. 44 Ibid., para. [97] – [98].

45 Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Teitiota v. the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment CA50/2014 [2014] NZCA 173 [online]. New Zealand, 8 May 2014 [cit. 2024-06-19]. Available at: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/ioane-teitiota-v-the-chief-executive-of-ministry-of business-innovation-and-employment-. 46 High Court of New Zealand. Teitiota v. the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHC 3125 [online]. New Zealand, 26 November 2013 [cit. 2024-06-19]. Available at: https://www.justice.govt.nz/jdo_documents/workspace___SpacesStore_e5c87a4e_2f10_48b0_ a43e_347d00577a59.pdf. 47 Ibid., para. [1] – [20].

82