CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015 between three and five working days to respond. The Board did its best to provide individualized assessments by determining whether the conditions prescribed in section 3 of the Parliament Act had been met. However, the views and arguments of the Sami Parliament did not affect the conclusions of the Court, which were based not on a proper factual assessment and legal interpretation of the Act on the Sami Parliament but, in most cases, on what the Court characterized as an “overall consideration” and “human rightsfriendly interpretation of the law”, without a basis in factual circumstances or proper legal assessment, and without reference to the Covenant, the rights of indigenous peoples or any other specific individual human right. 3.6 The present case originates from the expansive application, especially by the Supreme Administrative Court, of section 3 of the Act on the Sami Parliament. With respect to the 2011 elections to the Sami Parliament, the Court deviated from the wording of the Act to include in the electoral roll individuals who did not meet any of the objective criteria of section 3 in addition to the subjective criterion of individual self-identification. Those rulings triggered a recommendation by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in 2012, calling on Finland to give more weight to Sami self-determination in decisions concerning inclusion on the electoral roll. 5 The rulings also resulted in a negotiation process between the Government and the Sami Parliament. A solution that satisfied the Sami was reached in 2013 and the related bill was presented to the national Parliament in September 2014. The bill did not get enough support, largely because of pressure from the non-Sami majority population in northernmost Finland. This allowed the Court to continue its expansive application of section 3 beyond its wording. 3.7 The author does not object to the Court being entitled in principle to review the application of section 3 of the Act by the pertinent bodies of the Sami Parliament. However, in order to be compatible with the Covenant, the standard for external judicial review of the decisions of those bodies should be arbitrariness or discrimination. The Court, however, did not conclude in any of the 93 cases that the decisions by the pertinent organs of the Parliament not to accept the individuals in question as eligible voters amounted to arbitrariness or discrimination. 3.8 The author adds that the Court’s ruling of 13 January 2016 constitutes a new violation of the rights of the author and her fellow members of the Sami indigenous people under articles 25 and 27, read alone and in conjunction with article 1, of the Covenant. The ruling weakened the capacity of the Sami Parliament to defend the rights and interests of the Sami indigenous people, including the rights of the author and other Sami individuals to enjoy their culture in community with other members of the group. As a result of the ruling the Sami Parliament had to pay the legal costs of the 27 people who contested the decision to hold new elections, amounting to €11,645. This has put an important financial burden on the Parliament’s already very limited budget. State party’s further explanations 4.1 By notes verbales dated 27 July 2017, 29 November 2017 and 12 July 2018, the State party responded to the Committee’s request for further explanations. It reiterates that the author failed to substantiate in what way she has been directly affected by the Supreme Administrative Court rulings. A person entitled to vote should be free to vote for any candidate and the State party will always respect the results of genuine, democratic elections of the Sami Parliament. The State party also will not take a stand on any possible internal disagreements within the Sami Parliament. 4.2 Currently, three different communications regarding the same subject matter are pending before treaty bodies, two before the Human Rights Committee and one before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The other communication submitted to the Human Rights Committee was submitted on behalf of 25 persons, two of whom are members of the Sami Parliament. The communication submitted to the 5 GE.19-04714 CERD/C/FIN/CO/20-22, para. 12. See also CCPR/C/FIN/CO/6, para. 16: the Human Rights Committee recommended that the State party should advance the implementation of the rights of the Sami by strengthening the decision-making powers of Sami representative institutions, such as the Sami Parliament. 5