CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015 forestry agency. The rulings by the Supreme Administrative Court contribute towards this atmosphere of disregard towards the Sami Parliament, and the obligation of consultation is being increasingly ignored by government authorities. This tendency is further illustrated by the Ministry of Transport’s announcement, in March 2018, of its plans to build a railway to the Arctic Ocean, cutting through the reindeer herding lands of the Sami and destroying their way of life, after the Sami “were heard” but not genuinely consulted. 5.10 Regarding the Committee’s question on the negotiations with Norway concerning salmon fishing in the River Teno, the new bilateral treaty has been signed between the two countries, but the Sami Parliament was excluded from the negotiations. The decisive phase of the negotiations coincided with the time when the Sami Parliament was weakened by the Court rulings. The uncertainty that followed the election directly affected the Sami Parliament’s capacity to successfully intervene. The new treaty will adversely affect the fishing activities and culture of the Sami people in Finland. Both the Constitutional Law Committee of the Finnish Parliament 17 and the Government’s internal legality oversight office18 concluded that the Sami Parliament had not been duly consulted. The Parliament of Finland approved the treaty by a majority of 111 votes out of 200 Members, of which none are Sami. This lack of full consultation constitutes a separate violation of the rights of the author and her colleagues at the Sami Parliament under articles 25 and 27 of the Covenant, as informed by article 1. 5.11 Regarding the Committee’s question on the impact of the Court decisions on the author’s cultural and linguistic rights, the author recalls her initial claims. 19 She further notes that she is a reindeer herder and fisherwoman; the nature-based activities in which she engages have remained constitutive of her Sami identity and culture at an individual level. She sees it as an important part of her identity to transmit to the following generations her knowledge of the Sami methods of reindeer herding and fishing. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court violated articles 25 and 27 of the Covenant by preventing the author from taking part in genuine periodic elections and negatively affecting the author and the Sami people’s use of their language and enjoyment of their culture in community with other members. According to the author, those decisions have produced a situation of lawlessness and arbitrariness and greater division within the Sami Parliament, which has become less efficient in promoting and protecting the rights of the Sami people. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the Court’s review was provided by law and in full compliance with article 25 of the Covenant, and respects the right of each voter to be free to vote for any candidate. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that it fully respects selfidentification as a criterion for the determination of a person as indigenous, in compliance with recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It also notes the author’s assertion that the State party fails to acknowledge the concern of that same Committee that the definition adopted by the Supreme Administrative Court gives 17 18 19 GE.19-04714 The author makes reference in her submission to comments by the Constitutional Law Committee on the approval by the Parliament of Finland of the ratification of the Teno treaty of 23 February 2017, with a quotation reading: “According to materials received by the Committee, the duty of consultation, as prescribed by Section 9 of the Sami Parliament Act, was in certain respects disregarded in the negotiations.” The author makes reference in her submission to an internal legality oversight office decision of 23 March 2017, with a quotation from the decision reading: “Similarly to the Constitutional Law Committee, I take the view that the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry has in certain respects failed to comply with the duty of consultation as prescribed in the Sami Parliament Act.” See the decision on admissibility for Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, paras. 3.1–3.5. 9