E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 machinery and drilling into the bedrock. The authors submit that, together with the highly unstable weather conditions driven by ongoing climate change, any new disturbances could lead to unpredictable and adverse consequences for both the reindeer and their herders. 2.18 According to the authors, the Ruossakero area contains important reindeer pastures and critical winter herding lands. Rich with lichen and ecologically diverse, it provides the Sami with crucial flexibility in the annual herding cycle, as it can be used at different times of the year, depending on weather conditions. This is an important factor, as climate change has made weather conditions more unpredictable. Consequently, any lack of availability of the area will disrupt the annual cycle between seasonal herding lands, as winter pastures recover only if the reindeer are kept elsewhere. The area reservation will inevitably lead to an increase in the human presence in an area that has been a refuge for reindeer even during the active tourist season. The granting of the reservation will affect the sustainability of Sami reindeer herding, regardless of the kind of exploration work that the company intends to carry out at a later stage. 2.19 According to the authors, there is no domestic remedy available to them, as the Supreme Administrative Court has already firmly established that they do not have legal standing to appeal against the granting of a reservation.4 Complaint 3.1 The authors submit that the granting, despite their consistent opposition and in the absence of an impact assessment, of a permit for a mineral exploration project (communication No. 251/2022) and the granting of a reservation (communication No. 289/2022) in respect of areas on their traditional territory without obtaining their free, prior and informed consent and in the context of ongoing climate change and the cumulative effect of other interferences, such as wind farms, military activities and organized group tourism, have the effect of eroding the preconditions for communal reindeer herding and its transmission from generation to generation. Consequently, these acts constitute a violation of their rights to take part in the cultural life of a community and to enjoy just and favourable conditions of work that ensure remuneration that provides them with a decent living for themselves and their families, both of these rights being interpreted in the light of articles 1, 6, 11 and 12, and both in conjunction with article 2 (2), of the Covenant. The right to transmit an Indigenous way of life and a traditional economic activity from generation to generation constitutes a core dimension of articles 15 and 7 (a) (ii) of the Covenant in the context of Indigenous Peoples. 3.2 In submitting that both provisions should be read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (2) of the Covenant, the authors claim, for communication No. 251/2022, that they are subject to substantial, indirect and systematic discrimination in respect of the unilateral power of the State party to conduct (through the Geological Survey of Finland), authorize (through the Safety and Chemicals Agency) and uphold authorization to conduct (through the courts) mineral exploration works on their traditional territory without good faith efforts to obtain their free, prior and informed consent. Furthermore, the discriminatory nature of the Mining Act is demonstrated by the fact that, as the State has declared itself to be the owner of their lands, it will receive annual compensation from its own agency (the Geological Survey of Finland), while, by contrast, the Sami, who are not recognized as owners of their traditional lands, will not receive any compensation for the adverse impact on their lands. While clarifying that this does not imply that they would accept monetary compensation as an adequate remedy, the authors assert that no landowner is in the same situation as the Sami, where even their right to compensation is denied. In communication No. 289/2022, the authors are at the mercy of the State party’s Forest Agency with regard to the intensity of the exploration works that will be conducted. Furthermore, the discriminatory nature of the Mining Act is demonstrated by the fact that they have no right of appeal against the granting of a reservation, nor are they in a position to control the nature of the works. 4 GE.24-18518 The authors were denied victim status when appealing against the granting of the reservation for the “Lätäs 1” project (Supreme Administrative Court, KHO 2013:179). The Supreme Administrative Court later upheld this precedent, declaring inadmissible an appeal filed by another siida against another request for reservation (KHO H731/2021). 5