"When deciding upon the question whother article 27 of the Covenant has been violated, the following must be con.idered. It is true that Ivan Kitok has bean denied membership in the Semi communit7 of Sorkaitum. Normally, this would hav~ meant th~t he also had been deprived of any possibility 01 carrying out reindeer husbau,lry. However, in this case the Board of the Semi community declared that Ivar .,... tOI't, as an owner of dome.ticated ':elndeer, can be present when calve. are mark'ld, re"nd.er slaughtered and herd.. are rounded up and reassigned to own~rs, all this in order to safeguard his inlere.ts as a reindeer owner in STAmi society, albeit not ae a member of the Semi community. He is also allowed to hunt and fish free of charge in the community'. pasture area. The.e facts were also decisive in enabling the Regeringsratten to reach a conclusion when judging the matter. "Th" Government contends that Ivan Kitok in practice can still continue his reindeer husbandry, although he cannot e.ercise this right unde~ the seme safe conditions as the members of the Semi cOI,nunity. Thus, it cannot be said that he haA been prevented from 'enjoying his own culture'. I~or that reason the Government maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as being incompatibl" with the Covenant." 4.3 Shoul~ the Committee arrive at another opinion, the State party submits thata "As is evident from the legislation, the Reindeer Husbandry Act aims at protecting and preserving the Semi culture and reindeer husbandry as such. The conflict that has occurred in this case is not so much a conflict between Ivan Kitok a8 a Semi and the State, but rather between Kitok and other S&ni. As in every society where conflicts occur, a choice has to be made between what is considered to b~ in the general interest on the one hand and the interests of the individual on the other. A special circumstance here is that reindeer husbandry is so closely connpcted to the Semi culture that it must be considered part of the Semi culture itsolf. "In this caS8 the legislation can be said to favour the Semi community in order to mftke reindeer husbandry economically viable now and in the future. "rhe pasture areas for reindeer husbandry are limited, and it is simply not pOflsible to let all Semi e.ercise re.indeer husbandry without jeopardhing this objective and running th~ risk of endangering the existence of reindeer husbandry as such. "In this case it should be noted that ~t is for the Semi community to decide whether a person is to be allowe~ membership or not. It is only when the community denies membership that the matter can become a case for the C0urts. "Artl· 21 guarantees the right of persons belonging to minority groups to enjoy their own culture. However, although not explicitly provided for in the text itsolf, c;uch restrictions on the exercise of this right .•. must be considered justifi~d to the extent that they are n~cessary in a democratic society in view of public interests ot vital importance or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In vie", of th~ intertists underlying the reindeer husbandry legislation and its very limited impact on Ivan Kitok's possibility of 'enjoying his culture', the Government submits that under all the circumstances tIe present case does not indicate the existence of a violation of article 27. -225-