E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 7.2 The authors claim that the failure to conduct an impact assessment is visible in the State party’s erroneous argument that the reindeer could be moved away from where the Geological Survey of Finland conducts drilling works when it conducts them. 7.3 The authors argue that the State party admits to practising discrimination when it asserts that the law treats the Sami identically to non-Sami. 7.4 Regarding communication No. 289/2022, the authors observe that there is no disagreement between the parties that the State party explicitly confirmed that they did not have a right to appeal the granting of a reservation, but they disagree as to whether an area reservation affects the rights of the Sami. According to the authors, as it is possible for a reservation holder – with the consent of the landowner (the State party’s own Forest Agency) – to conduct intrusive exploration works before applying for an exploration permit, they have been placed in a situation of uncertainty concerning whether they can use their lands according to their traditions and the needs of their reindeer, as any day the reservation holder may enter their lands. 7.5 The authors request, for communication No. 251/2022, that the Geological Survey of Finland refrain from any exploration works on their lands; for communication No. 289/2022, that the Forest Agency refrain from giving its consent to any exploration works on their lands; and, for both communications, that the State party proceed to amend the Mining Act to recognize a special status for the Sami people, including new provisions on the free, prior and informed consent of the Sami. Additional information from the parties 8. In additional information provided on 30 October 2023, the State party clarifies that it does not follow from the principle of free, prior and informed consent that consensus must be reached if sufficient guarantees of effective participation have been provided (communication No. 251/2022). Even though the Sami do not have an automatic right to appeal against reservation decisions, they may have such a right, depending on the case (communication No. 289/2022). 9. In additional information provided on 23 November 2023, the authors observe that the State party no longer claims that they consented to the project (communication No. 251/2022). It appears to reopen the matter of whether they had a right to appeal against the reservation decision (communication No. 289/2022). B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 10 (2) of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether the communication is admissible. 10.2 The Committee recalls that, under article 3 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, it shall declare inadmissible any communication that concerns a matter that has already been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee takes note of the authors’ statement that children from their community have submitted a communication to the Committee on the Rights of the Child concerning the same mineral exploration project as that dealt with in communication No. 251/2022. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights notes that the communications procedure of the Committee on the Rights of the Child constitutes a “procedure of international investigation or settlement” within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recalls that the “same matter” means one and the same claim relating to the same parties, events and substantive rights.9 Given that the complaint filed with the Committee on the Rights of the Child does not have the same authors, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concludes that it is not the “same matter” and that article 3 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol is therefore not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communications. 9 10 See, mutatis mutandis, Merino Sierra and Merino Sierra v. Spain (E/C.12/59/D/4/2014), para. 6.4. GE.24-18518