"2. A perlon entitled to engage in reindeer hu.bandry who ha. participated in reindeer husbandry withiu the pa.ture area of the village and who has had this as his permanent or.cupation and has not gone over to ftny other main economic activity. "3. A person entitled to engage in reindeer husbandry who is the husband or child living at home of a member as qualified in .ub.ectlon 1 or 2 or who is the survivin'iJ husband or minor child of a decea.ed member." Section 12 of the Act provides thata "A Semi community may accept as a member a perlon entitled to engage in reindeer husbandry other than as specified in .ection 11, if he intends to carry on reindeer husbandry with his own reindeer within the pasture area of the community. "If the applicant should b~ refused membership, the grant him membership, if special reasons should e.ist." L~~~sstyrelsen may 9.7 It can thus be sften that the Act provides certain criteria for participation in the life of an ethnic minolity whereby a perlon who il ethuically a Semi can be held not to be a Semi for the purposes of the Act. The Committee has been concerned that the ignoring of objective ethnic criteria in determining membership of a minority, and the application to Mr. Kitok of the designated rules, may have been disproportionate to the legitimate ends sought by the legislation. It hal further noted that Mr. Kitok has always retained some links with the Sami community, always living on Semi lands and seeting to return to full-time reindeer farming as soon as it became financially possible, in his particular circumstances, tor him to do so. In resolving this problem, in which there is an apparent conflict between the legislation, which seems to protect the rights of the minority as a whole, and its application to a single member of that minority, the Committee hal been guided by the (atio decidendi in the Lovelace case (No. 24/1977, LavalGe. v. ConadA), ii/ namely, that a re.triction upon the right of an individual member o( a minority must be shown to have a reasonable and objective justifIcation and co De necessary for the continued viability and welfare of the minority as a whole. After a careful review of all the elements involved in this case, the Committee i. of the view that there is no violation of article 27 by the State party. In this conte.t, the Committee notes that Mr. Kitok is permitted, albeit not as of right, to graze and farm his reindeer, to hunt and to fish. 9.8 H. Submitteii bys CommuniCAtion No. 201/1985. Hend(iks y. the Netherloniis (il§ws Adopted on 27~~1988 at the thirty-third aeasian) Wim Hendriks, Sr. Alle~y.ictima The author Stote .»-AI:.tY-_concerneda The Netherlands 12A.t.D. nQL..communicAti2Dz 30 I2.At.tL.Q~ December 1985 (date of initial let.ter) decisioDQJLAdmissibiU.tyz 25 March 1987 -230-