E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 whole, the exploration area is relatively small-scale and that the exploration will be temporary. The area of the “Lätäs 1” project falls within a scarce resource, namely, critical winter herding lands, the availability of which determines the size of the herd that the whole area of the siida can sustain. Disrupting herding in the critical winter months in the scarce winter herding pastures would cause permanent damage to reindeer herds and to Sami reindeer herding. 5.3 The authors contend that the State party’s submission that the Geological Survey of Finland has a merely scientific mission is misleading. The State party confirms that the mission of the Survey includes serving the needs of businesses and society in general. While it does not engage in mining as such, its activities promote “the competitiveness of business and regions”, according to the Act on the Geological Survey of Finland (sect. 2), and pave the way for companies interested in exploiting mineral resources. Its permit application indicated that it was looking for copper, iron and gold; the permit was granted for the purpose of exploring for deposits of these metals. 5.4 According to the authors, the State party’s submission is misleading regarding the memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Justice in November 2017, which states that consensus must be sought in all negotiations between the public authorities and the Sami Parliament. The memorandum has no legal force; it was issued after the exploration permit had been granted and was not subsequently applied by the Administrative Court of Northern Finland or the Supreme Administrative Court. 5.5 As for the State party’s argument that they lack victim status, the authors submit that the violations have already occurred, as the international standard of free, prior and informed consent was not complied with when the Safety and Chemicals Agency granted the permit and the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that decision. Indeed, in its Views in Billy et al. v. Australia, the Human Rights Committee considered that the risk of impairment of the authors’ rights was more than a theoretical possibility, given that their lives were highly dependent on the availability of the limited natural resources to which they had access. 8 According to the authors, taking into account the intergenerational nature of the right of Indigenous Peoples to transmit their culture to new generations, a chain of cultural transmission is interfered with much earlier than an Indigenous culture is destroyed, such that, when such interference with cultural transmission occurs, the admissibility conditions of victimhood and substantiation are already met. 5.6 With regard to the State party’s argument that they have not exhausted domestic remedies, the authors claim that they did raise climate change arguments in the domestic proceedings and that they have raised the issue before the Committee not to include a claim that climate change as such would constitute a violation but only to substantiate their claims. 5.7 With regard to the State party’s argument that communication No. 251/2022 is manifestly ill-founded and that the authors seek to have the Committee act as a fourth instance, the authors submit that the Supreme Administrative Court was both formalistic and wrong in holding that the international standard of free, prior and informed consent had been met merely by giving the Sami an opportunity to be heard. 5.8 Lastly, the authors indicate that some children who are members of their community have submitted a communication to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, but that case relates to different victims and a different set of human rights violations. 5.9 In their comments of 23 February 2023 regarding communication No. 289/2022, in response to the State party’s argument relating to their alleged lack of victim status, the authors claim that the principle of free, prior and informed consent was not upheld before the reservation decision and that, under Finnish law, they have no judicial recourse. They submit that the mere existence of the area reservation places them in a position of vulnerability and unpredictability and could have a grave adverse effect on the transmission of Sami culture from generation to generation, as this process requires the Sami to have confidence that their efforts to cope with the challenges caused by climate change will not be frustrated by mineral exploration works. 8 8 CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019, paras. 7.10 and 8.14. GE.24-18518