;;.2 In ~n attempt to red~ce the number of reindeer breeders. the Swedish Crown and the Lap bailiff havA insisted that. if a S~i engageR in any other profession for a perioh of three years. he loses his status cnd his name is removed from the rolls of tIl,! .1APW, which he Cal'Dot re-enter except with special permission. Thus ii:. Is clai."1l'~d that the C~own arbit.rarily denies the immemorial rights of the Sarni minora&" and that Iven Kltok is the victim of such denial of rights. 2.3 With ~9spect to the exhausti~D of dumestic ~emedies, tne autlwr states that he has suught redress through all instances in Swednn, and thh~ the Regeringsratten (Highest Administrative Court of Sweden) decided against him 0" 6 Jane 1985. although two dissenting jUdges found for him and would have made him a member of the sMjeb,y. 2.4 The author st~tes that tbe sarne mattet' ha~ not been submitted for examination under auy other procedure of international i~vz3tig~tion or settlement. 3. By its decision of 19 March 1986. the Wor~in9 Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the r.o~nunication. under rule 91 of the provisional rules of p~ocedure, to the State pat'ty concerned, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the eommunication. The Working Group alao requested the State party to pro,,-ide the Committee with the text of the relevant administrative and judicial decisions pertaining to the case, il'.cluding (a) the deuision of 23 January 1981 of the Linsstyrelsen, No~rbotten& liD (the relevant administrative authority), (b) the jUdgement of 17 May 1983 of the Xammarratten (Administ~ative Court of Appeal) and (c) tha judgem~nt of 6 June 1985 of the Regerinqsri~ten <Highest Administrative Court of Sweden) with dissenting opiniun,;. 4.1 By its suhni.ssion, da';:ed 12 September 1986. the ~tate party provided requested administrative and judicial decisiQns and observed as follows: -_ ... the .. 1 ' "IVah Kitok has alleged breaches of articles 1 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The GoverDmeut has understood Ivon Kitok's complaint under article 27 thus: that he - through Sweais~ legislation and as a result of Swedish court decisions - h~s been prevented from exercisicg his 'reindeer brer.ding rights' and consequently denied cbe right to enjoy ~be culture of the Semi. "With respect to the autllor's complaint under article 1 of the Covenant. the State party observes that it is uot certain whether Ivan ~ito~ claims that the Sarni as a people should have the right to self-determinlltion all set forth in ar.ticle 1. paragraph 1, or whether the complaint should b~ consinered to ~~ limited f:o paragra}'{~ 2 of that article. an allegation that tli.tl Sarni as ~ people have been denied the right freely to diBpose of their natural wealth und resources. However, as can be seen already from the material presenteo by l~an Kitok himself, the issue concerning the riqhts of the Sarni to land and water. and questions connected herdto. is a matter of immense complexity. Th~ matter has been the object of discussions. consideration dnd decisions ever since the Swedish Administration started to take interest in the areas in northern Sweden, .~ere the Sarni live. As a matter of fact, some of the issues with resper.t to the Sarni population are currently under consideration by the Samerattsutredningen (Swedish Cmnmission on Sarni Issues) appoin~ed by the Government in 1983. For the tim~ being, th~ Government refrains from further comments on this aspect of the applicatio~. Suffice it to say that. in the . .;;.'222-