E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 rights of Indigenous Peoples24 and is considered to be the fundamental premise of the right to consultation and consent.25 14.5 The Committee, therefore, is of the view that, in the context of Indigenous Peoples, article 15 (1) (a), read in conjunction with articles 1 and 11, of the Covenant entails the right of Indigenous Peoples to the lands, territories and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired and requires States parties to take measures to recognize and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources. 26 It follows that States parties must ensure the effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in decision-making processes that may affect their way of life, in particular their right to land, based on the principle of their free, prior and informed consent, so as not to endanger the very survival of the community and its members,27 as enshrined in article 32 (2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and reaffirmed in the Committee’s general comments.28 14.6 In the case of communication No. 251/2022, the Committee notes that the State party invited comments from the Käsivarsi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative and the Sami Parliament and arranged two negotiation meetings to consider the exploration permit with them. The Committee also notes that, despite both institutions’ opposition, the Safety and Chemicals Agency granted the permit to the Geological Survey of Finland. The Committee further notes that the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the aforementioned procedure had provided the conditions to ensure that the Sami, as an Indigenous People, had had a de facto opportunity to participate in the permit procedure.29 The Committee observes that, throughout the process, there was no independent assessment of the impact of the exploration activities on reindeer herding as a fundamental part of the Sami culture and livelihood, the intergenerational transmission of the practice and the right of the Sami as an Indigenous People to engage in the practice. The Committee is of the view that an adequate and effective process of free, prior and informed consent, when the rights of Indigenous Peoples may be affected by projects carried out in their traditional territories, must include not only the sharing of information with and the gathering of comments from the affected community, but also an interactive and continuous dialogue through Indigenous Peoples’ own representative institutions, from the outset and through culturally appropriate procedures, respecting the right of Indigenous Peoples to influence the outcome of decision-making processes affecting them. The Committee considers that environmental, social and cultural impact studies, conducted by independent and technically competent entities, should serve as the basis for a process of consultation aimed at obtaining free, prior and informed consent.30 The Committee notes the State party’s observation that the principle of free, prior and informed consent does not mean that consensus must be reached, as long as sufficient guarantees of effective participation have been provided. The Committee finds, nonetheless, that the procedure provided in this case does not meet the standard of effective participation in accordance with the principle of free, prior and informed consent. 14.7 In the case of communication No. 289/2022, the Committee notes that the authors were not contacted at any point in the process of the granting of the reservation, that, 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 GE.24-18518 General comment No. 26 (2022), para. 11; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 12 (1984), para. 1; and A/HRC/48/75, para. 62. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Derecho a la libre determinación de los Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales (2021), para. 177. General comment No. 21 (2009), para. 36; and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 26 (2). Human Rights Committee, Oliveira Pereira et al. v. Paraguay (CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015), para. 8.7; and Roy et al. v. Australia. General comments No. 21 (2009), paras. 37, 49 (e) and 54 (a); No. 24 (2017), paras. 12 and 17; and No. 26 (2022), para. 21. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO 2021:83. See also general comments No. 26 (2022), para. 21; and No. 24 (2017), paras. 12 and 17; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Ågren et al. v. Sweden, para. 6.18; A/HRC/39/62; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Judgment, 27 June 2012, para. 167; and Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment, 28 November 2007, para. 133; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources (2010), paras. 318 and 319. 15