CERD/C/102/D/54/2013 without sufficient guarantees or evidence that the free, prior and informed consent of the members of the community can be effectively sought and won. 6.21 In the present case, the State party did not demonstrate how the process of granting the three mining concessions under the Minerals Act and the Environmental Code correctly took into account previous standards and the petitioners’ specific rights. 6.22 In light of the above, due to the lack of consideration of the petitioners’ land rights in the granting of the mining concessions, the Committee concludes that the petitioners’ rights under article 5 (d) (v) of the Convention have been violated. (b) Article 5 (a) of the Convention 6.23 The Committee has further taken note of the petitioners’ claims under article 5 (a) of the Convention to the effect that the State party breached their right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice by legally allowing mining concessions on their traditional lands without considering their fundamental property right. In particular, the petitioners claim that mining legislation and policies discriminate against the Sami reindeer herders specifically, not by treating them differently from the rest of the Swedish population, but by not doing so, ignoring the particularities of the indigenous Sami cultural identity, traditional livelihoods and dependence on reindeer herding for survival. According to the petitioners, the right to non-discrimination requires that Vapsten be treated as an indigenous reindeer herding community and not simply as a Swedish property right holder. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that no act of racial discrimination on account of their ethnic origin has occurred as the petitioners are treated on an equal footing with landowners concerned by the project. 6.24 The Committee considers that, in the present case, the petitioners have not sufficiently substantiated their claim under article 5 (a) of the Convention. As a consequence, the Committee is not in a position to consider whether the State party has violated article 5 (a) of the Convention. (c) Article 6 of the Convention 6.25 Regarding the petitioners’ allegations under article 6 of the Convention, the Committee considers that the main issue is whether the State party fulfilled its obligations under that provision to ensure respect for the petitioners’ right to seek effective protection and remedies for any damage suffered as a result of the granting of three mining concessions in their traditional territory. The Committee notes the petitioners’ affirmation that they have not had access to any domestic institution that could evaluate the fundamental right to traditional property and include an evaluation of whether the mining activities should be disallowed due to their negative impact on Sami reindeer herding. The Land and Environment Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, while applying the mining legislation, can only examine the application of domestic law, which is itself the source of the breach of rights. The petitioners recall previous similar refusals. 26 In addition, the petitioners allege that, whereas Swedish landowners can be provided with full market-value compensation for their property, monetary compensation cannot adequately compensate Sami indigenous peoples when deprived of reindeer pasture land that is indispensable to the community’s reindeer herding and an element of the very basis of their cultural identity and traditional livelihood. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that there is no breach of article 6 of the Convention as the possibility of a judicial review by the Supreme Administrative Court satisfies the petitioners’ right to appeal against the granting of the concessions. 6.26 The Committee recalls that article 6 provides protection to alleged victims if their claims are arguable under the Convention27 and notes that the State party did not submit any evidence on available domestic remedies that could provide adequate reparation or satisfaction for the damage the petitioners have suffered as a result of the ineffective consultation process in the context of the mining concessions. Moreover, the Committee 26 27 The petitioners refer to Umeå District Court, Land and Environment Court, decision of 28 August 2003, in cases No. M 112-01 and No. M 113-01 (Svartliden, Fäboliden and Stortjärnhobben). Durmic v. Serbia and Montenegro (CERD/C/68/D/29/2003), para. 9.6. 15