CCPR/C/83/DR/1023/2001 Page 7 considered a justification for not pursuing domestic remedies, where such allegations would be examined. 4.7 Accordingly, the authors have neither exhausted domestic remedies available to them, nor demonstrated any special circumstances which might absolve them from doing so. Finally, the State party argues that the brief communication lacks sufficient material basis, including basic evidence, that would go beyond a mere allegation. Accordingly, the case is said not to have been substantiated. Authors’ comments 5.1 In comments dated 15 March 2002, the authors supplied comments, restricted to the admissibility arguments of the State party. 5.2 As to the availability of domestic remedies in respect of the other areas (not covered by the earlier communication), the authors contend that the State party’s suggestion of available remedies is misplaced. No court action designed to prevent specific logging plans was successful, partly because any concrete logging tract “is always only a seemingly modest part of the overall lands [that] are used by the Sami for reindeer herding”. There is no indication that a case seeking positive protection for Sami herders would be successful, and, in any event, the existing Supreme Court ruling would be a further obstacle. 5.3 For the authors, the National Forest & Park Service has been too restrictive in providing information on its logging activities affecting the life of Angeli Sami. On the issue of substantiation of claims, the authors argue that they have shown that the reductions of reindeer after the Ministry’s decisions was a direct consequence of the impact of logging on pasture areas. They have detailed the State party’s plans to continue logging despite the Committee’s earlier Views. The authors regard this as sufficient substantiation. 5.4 Finally, the authors state that there are plans for further logging by the National Forestry and Park Service within the area already subject to court proceedings, an area known as the Kippalrova tract. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 During its 77th session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. On the contention that the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen’s Committee did not have standing to bring a claim under the Optional Protocol, the Committee referred to its constant jurisprudence that legal persons are not “individuals” able to bring such a claim. 3 Neither was there an indication that individual members of the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen’s Committee had authorized it to bring a claim on their behalf, or that Jouni and/or Eino Länsman were authorized to act on behalf of the Herdsmen’s Committee and its members. Accordingly, while it was uncontested that Jouni and Eino Länsman had standing to bring the communication on their own behalf, the Committee considered the communication 3 See, for example, Hartikainen v. Finland, Case no. 40/1978, Decision adopted on 9 April 1981, JT v. Canada, Case no. 104/1981, Decision adopted on 6 April 1983, and Ominayak et al. v. Canada, op. cit.