CCPR/C/83/D/1023/2001 Page 8 inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol insofar as it related to the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen’s Committee and/or its constituent members, other than Jouni and Eino Länsman. 6.2 On the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted that with the Supreme Court’s decision of 22 June 1995 there were no further avenues available to challenge the decision to undertake logging in the Pyhäjärvi and Kirkko-outa areas (the areas at issue in the earlier communication). Accordingly, the Committee considered that the issue of whether logging of these areas has had effects, in terms of article 27, greater than anticipated by either the Finnish courts in those proceedings or by the Committee in its Views on case No. 671/1995 is one that is admissible. 6.3 Regarding the Kippalrova area in which logging was planned, the Committee noted that this forest tract fell within the area covered by the Supreme Court decision of 22 June 1995. Accordingly it did not appear that further judicial review of this decision was possible. Accordingly, the Committee held the issues arising from the proposal to log this area to be admissible. 6.4 As to the 1998 logging in Paadarskaidi (outside the area covered by the Supreme Court decision), the Committee noted that the domestic remedies to which the State party points are all instances that have dealt, in terms of article 27, with logging plans prior to those plans being executed. In such circumstances, the decision on the anticipated future effects of logging is by necessity speculative, with only subsequent events bearing out whether or not the initial assessment was correct. The Committee observed that other cases referred to by counsel have also been challenges to proposed logging in advance. The Committee considered that the State party had not demonstrated, on the information supplied, what domestic remedies might be available to the authors seeking compensation or to obtain another appropriate remedy for an alleged violation of article 27 by virtue of logging that has already taken place. Accordingly, the Committee considered that the question of the effects, in terms of article 27, of logging in the Paadarskaidi already carried out was admissible. 6.5 On proposed further logging in Paadarskaidi, the Committee noted the authors’ contention that no claim before the Finnish courts seeking to prevent logging taking place had been successful. While mindful of the need to examine whether the judicial remedies in question were available and effective in practical terms, the Committee had insufficient information before it in terms of the numbers of actions brought, the arguments invoked and their outcomes to conclude that the judicial remedies invoked by the State party were ineffective. Accordingly, this portion of the communication was considered inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 Taking into account the authors’ contention that they had suffered a significant reduction in the number of reindeer that they are permitted to raise in their herding areas, the Committee considered that the parts of the communication that have not been found inadmissible for lack of standing or failure to exhaust domestic remedies had been substantiated, for purposes of admissibility. 6.7 On 1 April 2003, the Committee declared the communication admissible insofar as it relates to the cumulative effects on the exercise by Jouni and Eino Länsman of their rights under article 27 of the Covenant arising from the logging that had taken place in the Pyhäjärvi, Kirkko-outa and Paadarskaidi areas, along with the proposed logging in Kippalrova.