CCPR/C/83/D/1023/2001 Page 6 The State party’s admissibility submissions 4.1 On 31 December 2001, the State party supplied its observations on the admissibility only of the communication. On 8 February 2002, the Committee, acting through its Chairperson, decided to separate the consideration of the admissibility and the merits of the case. 4.2 The State party informed the Committee that it “refrains from conducting logging activities in the Angeli area (paragraph 10.1 2 in the Committee’s Views in case no. 671/1995, 30 October 1996) that would affect the exercise by the individual authors’ reindeer husbandry while their communication is under consideration by the Committee”. 4.3 The State party notes that as far as the Paadarskaidi area is concerned, the National Forest & Park Service carried out increment felling (preparative cutting) totalling some 200300 hectares between 1998 and 2000. The distance between the Angeli area and the Paadarskaidi area is about 30 kilometres. It considers the communication inadmissible on three grounds: lack of proper standing as to one complainant, lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, and for failure to substantiate the claims for purposes of admissibility. 4.4 While accepting the status of the individual authors, the State party rejects the ability of the Herdsmen’s Committee to submit a communication. It considers that the Herdsmen’s Committee does not fall within the entitlement of article 27 of the Covenant, nor is it an “individual” within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Under the Reindeer Herding Act, a Herdsmen’s Committee consists of all herdsmen in a given area and who are not personally responsible for the performance of the Committee’s duties; thus, any claim on the Herdsmen’s Committee’s behalf amounts to an actio popularis. 4.5 The State party observes that domestic remedies remain available, as shown by the decisions of the District Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the earlier communication, the effectiveness of which has not been contested. The authors did not initiate any proceedings regarding logging operations planned or carried out in either the Angeli or Paadarskaidi areas subsequent to the Committee’s Views in the earlier communication. 4.6 The State party notes that in its Views on case 671/1995, the Committee me rely observed that, if the logging effects were more serious or further plans were approved, it would have to be considered whether this would constitute a violation of the authors’ article 27 rights. The Committee did not imply the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies could be done away with in any further complaint. This is particularly applicable when an assessment of a possible violation of article 27 requires an assessment of the relevant evidence both by the domestic courts and in turn the Committee. There is no proof that the effects of the earlier logging operations were more serious than foreseen at the time. The Ministry’s decisions to reduce the Herdsmen’s Committee’s herd does not substantiate any claim of the effects of individual logging operations. Nor may the reductions in reindeer be 2 Para 10.1 provides, as relevant: “The issue to be determined is whether logging of forests in an area covering approximately 3,000 hectares of the area of the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen’s Committee (of which the authors are members) - i.e. such logging as has already been carried out and future logging - violates the authors’ rights under article 27 of the Covenant.”