CERD/C/102/D/54/2013 1.2 The petitioners submit that, as members of the indigenous Sami people, they have their own culture, livelihoods and language, distinct from the cultures of non-Sami populations. In particular, reindeer herding constitutes the most central element of their cultural identity and traditional livelihood. The petitioners have migrated with their reindeer along the same routes used by their ancestors since time immemorial. The traditional territory of the Vapsten community covers approximately 10,000 km2, of which 3,000 km2 are spring, summer and autumn pasture areas and 7,000 km2 are winter pasture areas. All seasonal pasture areas are of vital importance as, without adequate pasture in all seasons, reindeer herding cannot be practised. The State party granted exploitation concessions to a private mining company in the community’s traditional territory, in the form of three open-pit mines located in the Rönnbäcken isthmus, a region with pasture areas of fundamental importance to the Vapsten community’s reindeer herding cycle. Each mine would have an associated industrial area, and a road system would connect the three mining sites. The mining system would result in dust spreading about 15 km from the mining sites in all directions, damaging lichen pasture, which is a crucial part of the reindeer’s nutrition. The mining system would also cut off the migration routes between various seasonal pasture areas, resulting in serious negative effects on reindeer herding. In addition to the Rönnbäcken triple project, other industrial projects have already been approved by the State party in the Vapsten community’s traditional territory; as a consequence, a large part of this territory has already been taken from the reindeer herding community and its pasture land is constantly decreasing, which is creating a real threat to reindeer herding and placing enormous psychological pressure on the community’s members. The petitioners claim that it is thus impossible for the community to sustain other mining concessions. They further claim that the State party, by granting, without the petitioners’ consent, the concession of three open-pit mines within their traditional property where they pursue a traditional livelihood, breached their right to property as enshrined in article 5 (d) (v) of the Convention. Indeed, under both national and international law, the community has established a property right to the land area in dispute, through traditional use. Without the pasture areas that the mining activities would occupy in line with the concessions granted by the State party, and without the migration routes, the petitioners would no longer be able to practise their traditional livelihood and would therefore need to be forcibly relocated from their traditional territory. In addition, the petitioners claim that the State party breached their right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice, as enshrined in article 5 (a) of the Convention, by ignoring the fact that the right to non-discrimination requires that the Vapsten community be treated as an indigenous reindeer herding community and not as a Swedish property rights holder. The petitioners claim that the mining legislation and policies discriminate against Sami reindeer herders’ groups specifically, not by treating the Sami differently from the Swedish population, but by not doing so. According to the petitioners, this discrimination is the root cause of the violations. Finally, the petitioners claim that the State party also breached their right to effective protection and remedies, pursuant to article 6 of the Convention, by denying them the right to bring to a court the specific issue of their traditional property rights, as the Supreme Administrative Court can only review the application of domestic law when it is the law itself that has caused the breach of rights. The petitioners add that monetary compensation cannot adequately provide for the loss of reindeer pasture land, which is indispensable to the community’s reindeer herding, as an element of its cultural identity and traditional livelihood. 1.3 On 22 October 2013, pursuant to rule 94 (3) of its rules of procedure, the Committee requested the State party to suspend all mining activities in the Vapsten reindeer herding community’s traditional territory while the petitioners’ case was under consideration. 1.4 On 1 May 2015, the Committee asked for additional information from the State party, reiterating its request for interim measures to be taken. 1.5 On 1 May 2017, under article 14 of the Convention and rule 94 of its rules of procedure, the Committee declared the communication admissible. First, it found that the petitioners had victim status, as the mere fact that the exploitation concessions were granted without prior consultation and consent has had an impact on the petitioners’ rights under the Convention, irrespective of future developments that could determine whether the mining plans would be carried out. Secondly, recalling that article 26 (2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples establishes the right for indigenous peoples 2