CERD/C/102/D/54/2013 32 (2009), according to which the term “non-discrimination” does not signify the necessity of uniform treatment when there are significant differences in situation between one person or group and another, or, in other words, if there is an objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment, that 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 and that the application of the principle of non-discrimination requires that the characteristics of groups be taken into consideration (para. 8). The petitioners also recall the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which there is a violation when a State fails to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different. 13 The petitioners claim that, as an indigenous Sami reindeer herding community, they are profoundly culturally different from the Swedish majority population when it comes to expropriation of land for mining purposes. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the submissions and documentary evidence produced by the parties, as required under article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention and rule 95 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. (a) Article 5 (d) (v) of the Convention (i) Arguments submitted by the parties 6.2 The Committee first notes the petitioners’ claim that their right to own property, protected under article 5 (d) (v) of the Convention, has been violated, as the State granted, without their consent, concessions for three open-pit mines within their traditional property where they pursue a traditional livelihood, leading to a concrete threat to reindeer herding and placing enormous psychological pressure on its members. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the petitioners’ description of their right as a property right is misleading, as the Sami’s right to pursue reindeer husbandry under Swedish legislation is not a right of ownership of land and does not entail formal title to or ownership of the land in question, but consists only of a right of usufruct. The Committee also notes the petitioners’ allegation that international human rights law provides that indigenous peoples’ traditional use of land in accordance with their own cultural practices establishes property rights, so that their rights to traditional territories exist independently of domestic legislation. According to the petitioners, a title is not a prerequisite for the recognition of indigenous people’s property rights, as a cardinal aspect of structural discrimination directed against indigenous peoples is precisely the lack of official recognition of rights over land. According to them, in an indigenous context, the right to property does not necessarily have to be expressed in the form of a State-recognized title. In this regard, the petitioners recall the Committee’s general recommendation No. 23 (1997), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and reports by the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. The petitioners claim that the term “right to own property” used in the Convention is considered as also encompassing property in the context of indigenous peoples, as the understanding of the right to property has clearly evolved when applied to an indigenous context. The Vapsten Sami reindeer herding community, which practises traditional Sami reindeer herding, has migrated along the same routes used by its ancestors since time immemorial. Thus, the petitioners claim that, even though Swedish mining legislation and the Reindeer Husbandry Act ignore these international human rights law standards, their property rights have been established through traditional use. 13 10 European Court of Human Rights, Thlimmenos v. Greece (application No. 34369/97), judgment, 6 April 2000, para. 44.