E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 self-determination is compromised, and the transmission of their culture from one generation to the next is jeopardized. Therefore, the violation of the land rights of the Sami is, in effect, a violation of their right to self-determination. 5. The justiciability of article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination, has historically been contested, with some States arguing that it is a political principle rather than a legally enforceable right. However, recent developments in international law, along with the evolving jurisprudence of the treaty bodies and regional human rights mechanisms, invite us to reconsider this obsolete approach and affirm that the right to self-determination is indeed fully justiciable within the framework of human rights law. 6. The Optional Protocol to the Covenant itself does not preclude the justiciability of article 1 of the Covenant. On the contrary, article 2 of the Optional Protocol explicitly allows for the submission of complaints alleging any violation of the rights set forth in the Covenant, which includes the right to self-determination. The Committee has further recognized that the right to self-determination is intrinsically linked to the rights enshrined in the Covenant, in particular the rights to freely dispose of natural wealth and resources (art. 1 (2)) and to pursue economic, social and cultural development without outside interference. Therefore, it can be considered that self-determination is a right enforceable and justiciable at the international level, including through article 1 of the Covenant, and its violation affects not only the peoples concerned but also the international order as a whole. 7. In the present case, the right of the Sami to self-determination is not abstract or political in nature; it is an actionable right that has a direct impact on their ability to maintain their cultural identity, economic sustainability and social structure. In my opinion, the State party’s failure to respect this right, due to a lack of meaningful consultation and the absence of mechanisms to ensure Sami participation in decisions affecting their traditional lands, constitutes a direct and autonomous violation of article 1 of the Covenant. This breach is all the more significant in the light of the cultural and economic dimensions of the right to self-determination, as emphasized in the Covenant and in the Committee’s work. 8. While the Committee stops short of affirming an autonomous violation of article 1 in the present case concerning the Sami people, its decision is particularly promising. It reflects a broader, progressive trend in the jurisprudence of the treaty bodies towards stronger protection of self-determination. It opens the door to even more ambitious, bold and protective case law, highlighting the growing need to fully recognize self-determination as a justiciable and enforceable right. GE.24-18518 19