0.2 The Committee noted that the State party did not claim that tha communication was inadmi •• ible under article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), the Committee obs81ved that the matter. cOlnplained of by Ivan Rltok were not being examined and had not been examined ~nder another procedure of international investigation or settlement. With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), the Committee wa. unable to conclude, on the basis of the information before it, that there were effective remedies iu the circumstances of the present ca.e to which the author could still resort. 0.3 With regard to the State party's submission that the communication should be declared inadmissible as incompatibl~ with article 3 of the Optional Protocol or as "manife.tly ill-founded", the Committee observed that the author, a8 an individual, could not claim to be the victim of a violation of the right of self-determination en.hrined in article I of the Covenant. Whereas the Optional Protocol provides a recourse procedure for individuals claiming that their rights have been violated, article I of the Covenant deals with rights conferred upon peoples, as such. However, with regard to article 27 of the Covenant, the Committee observed that the author had made a reasonable effort to .uhstantiate his allegations that he wos the victim of a violation of his right to enjoy tho sarne rights enjoyed by other member's of the Sarni community. Therefore, it decided that the issues before it, in particular the scope of article 27, should be examined with the merits of the case. 6.4 The Committee noted that both the author and the State party had already made extensive submissions with regard to the merits of the case. However, the Committee deemed it appropriate at that juncturn to limit itself to the procedural requirement of deciding on the admissibility of the communication. It noted that, it the State party should wish to add to its earlier submission within six months of the transmittal to it of the decision on admissibility, the author of the communication would be given Bn opportunity to comment thereon. If no further 8ubmissions were received from the State party under article 4, parugraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee would proceed to adopt its final views in the light of the written information already submitted by the parties. 6.5 On 25 March 1987, the Committee therefore decided that the communication was admissible in so far as it raised issues under article 27 of the Covenant, and requested the State party, should it not intend to make a further submission in the case under article 4, paragraph 2, of tha Optional Protocol, to so inform the Committee, so as to permit an early decision on the merits. By a note dated 2 September 1987, the State party informed the Committen that it did not intend to make a further ~ubmission in the case. No further submission has been received from the author. 7. The Human Rights Committee has considered the merits of the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. The facts of the case are not in dispute. 8. 9.1 The main question before the Cownittee is whether the author of the communication is the victim of a violation of article 27 of the Covenant because, as he alleges, he is arbitrarily denied immemorial rights granted to the Sarni community, in particular, the right to membership of the Sarni community and the right to carry out reindeer husbandry. In deciding whether or not the author of the communic&tion has been denied the right to "enjoy [his] own culture", as -228-