CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015 1.2 The author submits that in a 2011 decision, the Supreme Administrative Court of the State party departed from the consensual interpretation of section 3 of the Act on the Sami Parliament defining who is entitled to be included on the electoral roll for elections to the Sami Parliament, 1 and that on 30 September 2015 the Court decided to accept the applications of 93 persons who had been found ineligible to vote by the Sami Parliament; those persons were then allowed to vote. She claims that this action has weakened the voice of the Sami people in the Sami Parliament and the effectiveness of that Parliament in representing the Sami people in important decisions taken by the State party that may affect their lands, culture and interests. She claims that this unlawful interference by the State party in the Sami people’s right to define who is entitled to participate in elections to their Parliament violates article 1 of the Covenant and dilutes the political rights of the author and the Sami people’s vote, in violation of their rights to political participation under article 25 of the Covenant. The author also contends that the decisions regarding which persons were and were not admitted into the electoral roll were arbitrary, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. Lastly, she submits that, since the Sami Parliament plays an essential role in the protection of the Sami people’s right to enjoy their culture and language, and is established by the State party to be the conduit for securing the free, prior and informed consent of the Sami people in matters that may affect their interests, this dilution violates article 27 of the Covenant. 1.3 On 2 November 2015, pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, decided not to grant the author’s request to issue an urgent request to the State party not to appoint the members of the new Sami Parliament before the Committee would be able to address the merits of the communication. 1.4 On 28 March 2017, the Committee, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decided that the communication was admissible insofar as it appeared to raise issues with respect to articles 25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant. It also considered that the author, as a member of the Sami indigenous people and member of the Sami Parliament, of which she was the elected President, might be affected, as an individual, by the Court rulings referred to in the decision on admissibility. The Committee found that the author’s claim regarding violations of article 1 of the Covenant was inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, but that the Committee could interpret article 1, when relevant, in determining whether rights protected in parts II and III of the Covenant had been violated. The Committee requested the parties to provide further explanations regarding the merits of the communication. For further information about the facts, the author’s claims and the parties’ observations on admissibility and the Committee’s decision on admissibility, refer to Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (CCPR/C/119/D/2668/2015). State party’s observations on the merits 2.1 The State party submitted observations on the merits on 4 May 2016. It reiterates its previous submissions that the Act on the Sami Parliament provides a definition of a Sami. In 2012, the Ministry of Justice established a working group to prepare a proposal for the revision of the Act. The memorandum of the working group stated that the overall objective of the revision was to improve the operational preconditions of Sami cultural autonomy and of the Sami Parliament. Based on the proposal of the working group, a bill was submitted to the national Parliament in September 2014, which contained, inter alia, provisions for the revision of the definition. The proposed definition was supported by the Sami Parliament. During the discussion of the bill at the parliamentary committee level, it became clear that the Parliament of Finland would not approve the definition proposed. Since the question of the definition was the most important part of the bill, the Government decided, on 12 March 2015, to withdraw the bill. The Ministry of Justice intends to present a new bill to the Parliament of Finland. 1 2 Section 3 of the Act states that “A Sámi means a person who considers himself a Sámi provided: (1) That he himself or at least one of his parents or grandparents has learnt Sámi as his first language; (2) That he is a descendent of a person who has been entered in a land, taxation or population register as a mountain, forest or fishing Lapp; or (3) That at least one of his parents has or could have been registered as an elector for an election to the Sámi Delegation or the Sámi Parliament”. GE.19-04714