E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 self-determination (art. 1), in particular with regard to the economic and cultural dimensions of the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination.10 10.9 The Committee nevertheless considers that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their claim under article 15 (1) (a) of the Covenant, read in the light of the rights to work (art. 6) and to health (art. 12), and their claim under article 7 (a) (ii), read alone and in the light of articles 1, 6, 11 and 12, in conjunction with article 2 (2), of the Covenant. The Committee therefore declares these claims inadmissible under article 3 (e) of the Optional Protocol. 10.10 The Committee concludes that the communications are admissible insofar as they raise issues under article 15 (1) (a) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 1, 2 (2) and 11 of the Covenant, and proceeds to examine the merits. C. Committee’s consideration of article 4 of the Optional Protocol and rule 13 of the rules of procedure thereunder 11. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the Committee should decline to consider communication No. 251/2022 pursuant to article 4 of the Optional Protocol, as it does not reveal that the authors have suffered any clear disadvantage and does not raise a serious issue of general importance. The Committee clarifies that the purpose of article 4 is to provide the Committee with discretionary power and not to establish an admissibility requirement. In addition, the Committee considers that both communications reveal that the authors have suffered a clear disadvantage and that they raise a serious issue of general importance, namely, the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights under the Covenant. D. Committee’s consideration of the merits Facts and legal issues 12.1 The Committee has considered the present communications, taking into account all the information provided to it, in accordance with the provisions of article 8 of the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee will proceed to set out the facts that it deems to be established and relevant. Communication No. 251/2022 12.3 The authors belong to a Sami traditional semi-nomadic herding community, reindeer herding being a cornerstone of Sami culture and way of life. On 28 March 2014, the Geological Survey of Finland applied for a permit for exploration works for gold, copper and iron, entailing the drilling of 100- to 300-metre-deep holes into the bedrock in about 20 different locations over an area of 390 hectares in the authors’ traditional reindeer herding territory. The Safety and Chemicals Agency sought written comments from the Sami Parliament and the Käsivarsi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative in 2014 and invited them to participate in meetings in 2015 and 2016. Both institutions opposed the granting of the permit. However, the permit was granted on 7 July 2016. Both institutions appealed this decision. On 19 December 2018, the Administrative Court of Northern Finland dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision to grant the exploration permit. Both institutions appealed again, to the Supreme Administrative Court, which rejected their appeal on 21 June 2021, considering that the Sami had been sufficiently consulted for the purposes of the Mining Act, that the conditions set out in the exploration permit to reduce possible damage to reindeer herding were sufficient and that the surface area of the exploration works was relatively small. 10 12 Article 2 of the Optional Protocol states that a communication may be submitted regarding a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant, and it is possible to infer from the relevant travaux préparatoires an intention to include article 1 within the scope of the communications procedure, since its initial exclusion (with specific reference to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee) was eventually undone. GE.24-18518