E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 according to a precedent set by the Supreme Administrative Court, a reservation decision does not affect the practice of reindeer herding or restrict the right of the Sami as an Indigenous People to maintain and develop their culture and that the Sami do not have legal standing to appeal against the granting of a reservation. The Committee notes that, according to a report commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of the State party on the functioning of the reservation mechanism under the Mining Act, while “a reservation under the Mining Act has not been considered to have legal effects extending beyond the parties engaged in exploration”, “making a reservation notification creates uncertainty regarding the future opportunities to use and manage the area subject to the reservation”. It was stated in the report that this uncertainty “can also be considered to affect the Sámi people’s views on conditions for practicing traditional economic activities and the perceived fairness in general of the claim procedure under the Mining Act”.31 The Committee notes that the area reservation concerns the traditional territory of the authors as members of an Indigenous People. The Committee considers, however, that the procedure for the granting of a reservation takes no account of the rights of Sami living in the affected area to control and use their land and transmit their traditional livelihoods from generation to generation. 14.8 In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the State party has not demonstrated that, in the process of granting the exploration permit (communication No. 251/2022) and the reservation (communication No. 289/2022), adequate account was taken of the right of Indigenous Peoples to land, as part of the right to take part in cultural life, read alone and in conjunction with the rights to self-determination and to an adequate standard of living, and the obligation to ensure their effective participation, as established in international human rights law. 14.9 In addition, the Committee observes that the State party did not refute that Kova-Labba Siida is part of the authors’ traditional territory. The Committee notes the submission by the State party that exploration work can be carried out with the consent of the landowner, that the exploration permit holder is obliged to pay compensation to the landowner in accordance with the Mining Act and that, in both communications, the owner of the area concerned is the State. The Committee notes the State party’s observation that the legislation in question applies to both Sami and non-Sami, regardless of origin. 14.10 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 20 (2009), in which it stated that eliminating discrimination in practice requires paying sufficient attention to groups of individuals that suffer historical or persistent prejudice instead of merely comparing the formal treatment of individuals in similar situations (para. 8). The Committee also recalls that, as noted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to treat in an equal manner persons or groups whose situations are objectively different will constitute discrimination in effect, as will the unequal treatment of persons whose situations are objectively the same.32 Positive measures are required to prevent and eliminate conditions that perpetuate discrimination and to ensure the equal enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Covenant.33 In the context of Indigenous Peoples, this necessitates measures to give legal recognition to their rights to their traditional lands, including through forms of collective ownership, and to ensure protection of those rights, as an essential element of the right to take part in the cultural life of the community, and to provide effective remedies when these rights are infringed.34 14.11 The Committee observes that the State party’s failure to give legal recognition to the rights of Indigenous Peoples in respect of their traditional lands, which are the basis for their livelihood and income, has led to a situation in which the Sami are not entitled to compensation when their traditional lands are made the site of mineral exploration 31 32 33 34 16 Finland, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, Report on the Functioning of the Reservation Mechanism under the Mining Act (Helsinki, 2022), p. 29. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 32 (2009), para. 8. See also European Court of Human Rights, Thlimmenos v. Greece, Application No. 34369/97, Judgment, 6 April 2000. General comment No. 20 (2009), paras. 8 and 9. General comment No. 21 (2009), para. 36; and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 26. GE.24-18518