CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015 party is implicitly admitting that the interpretation by the Supreme Administrative Court of current section 3 violated the Covenant. In addition, half the members of the drafting committee are not Sami and belong to political parties predominantly voted for by nonSami Finns, when the matter discussed should be decided by the Sami alone. Additionally, a transition clause has been included in the current draft, delaying the entry into force of the amendments to at least 2020. The current draft thus does not ensure free, prior and informed consent of the Sami people, a requisite reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and referred to in the Human Rights Committee’s jurisprudence.10 The Sami people therefore confront a dilemma: section 3 of the Act will be amended only if they consent to the current proposal, but the proposal does not adhere to international standards regarding free, prior and informed consent. Moreover, an attempt to reform the Act failed in the past, 11 and there is no assurance that the proposal will be accepted this time. 5.7 The author refers to some Supreme Administrative Court decisions in response to the Committee’s question regarding the Court’s assessment in the 93 rulings and its interpretation of the definition of Sami contained in the Act on the Sami Parliament. In the first example,12 the Sami Parliament had rejected the appellant’s request because she did not meet the objective criteria contained in section 3 of the Act. The Court agreed that the appellant did not meet those criteria, but then found that she had demonstrated a strong devotion to Sami language and culture. It concluded that, in an overall consideration, the appellant should be regarded as a Sami. The author also presents the examples of two siblings with the same family history.13 The appeal of one was accepted under the Court’s “overall consideration” rationale, while the sibling’s appeal was rejected. The only difference between those two appeals was the appellants’ description of their selfidentification as a Sami. The Court’s assessment thus relies on self-identification of each individual as a Sami, which interferes with the Sami people’s right to self-determination and their aspiration to apply the law in a foreseeable and coherent manner. The author wishes to highlight that two of these rulings have been published in FINLEX, the Ministry of Justice database for Finnish legal documents, which implies that they are considered authoritative legal precedents. The author also refers to a report from a research project commissioned by the Government of Finland,14 in which the authors consider that some of the Court rulings provide different outcomes to identical claims and that it cannot be the task of the Supreme Administrative Court to determine who is a Sami in Finland, as its main task is to control the lawfulness of decisions. 5.8 Regarding the Committee’s question on the impact the Supreme Administrative Court decisions have had on the functioning of the Sami Parliament, the author reiterates her previous arguments.15 It is speculative to assess the consequences of the inclusion of new voters, because of the secrecy of ballots, but as a conservative estimate at least two Members of the Sami Parliament were elected due to modification of the electoral roll. The current composition of the Sami Parliament is also more divided, resulting in some members prioritizing Sami self-determination and indigenous people’s rights and other members seeking compromises with the State of Finland and the mainstream Finnish population. This trend is also undermining the increasing leadership demonstrated by young Sami women such as the author. 5.9 In response to the Committee’s question relating to forestry and other commercial activity, the obligation of consultation with the Sami Parliament established in section 9 of the Act on the Sami Parliament falls short of the current international standard reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Committee’s jurisprudence. 16 Adequate guarantees were deleted from the new act on the government 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 8 See, for example, Poma v. Peru (CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006), para. 7.6. See the decision on admissibility for Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (CCPR/C/119/D/2668/2015), para. 2.6. Supreme Administrative Court decision KHO: 2015: 145 (on file with the secretariat). Supreme Administrative Court decision KHO 2731/3/15 of 30 September 2015, and KHO 2837/3/15 of 30 September 2015 (on file with the secretariat). Heinämäki and others, Actualizing Sámi Rights. See the decision on admissibility for Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, para. 2.11. See, for example, Poma v. Peru, para. 7.6. GE.19-04714