CERD/C/102/D/54/2013 2.11 The State party recalls that the right to property is not absolute, but may be subjected to limitations in the public interest. According to the State party, the authorities considered the relative weights accorded to the interests concerned when evaluating whether the concessions applied for were compatible with the law, and there is nothing to indicate that the decision to give priority to mineral extraction over reindeer husbandry was erroneous. The State party also claims that, should the Committee find that a limitation has been imposed on the petitioners’ rights, that limitation was indeed necessary and proportional in relation to a legitimate State objective. Indeed, the area affected by the three concessions is small in relation to that of the Vapsten Sami village’s total area; the area designated as being of national interest for reindeer husbandry is considerably larger than the areas concerned by the concessions; thus, if reindeer husbandry were not possible in the those areas, this would not mean that the possibilities available to the Sami village to practise reindeer husbandry elsewhere would be impeded. Moreover, the mining activities primarily concern the extraction of nickel, a metal that the State party imports, and a complicating factor is that findings of minerals are located in a certain area and cannot be reallocated elsewhere, whereas the reindeer have the possibility of using alternative grazing grounds. Finally, the petitioners applied for compensation for alleged incorrect or negligent exercise of public authority in granting the concessions, but the application was rejected. When the petitioners applied for compensation for infringements of their property rights and their right to a fair hearing and for incorrect or negligent exercise of public authority, that application was also rejected, on the grounds that the petitioners had been ensured a hearing and that no violation had taken place. Thus, according to the State party, the limitation is not in breach of the Convention. 2.12 According to the State party, the meaning of the concept of free, prior and informed consent, as expressed, for instance, in article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has been disputed. That Declaration is not legally binding and the concept does not entail a collective right of veto. The State party recalls the conclusions drawn by the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples to the effect that consultations should be carried out in good faith, with the objective of achieving agreement, and that building consensus and mutual understanding and consensual decision-making should be objectives of the consultations, 1 but that consent may not be required when a limitation on indigenous peoples’ rights is considered to be necessary and proportional in relation to a valid State objective.2 2.13 The State party further indicates that, even though, before submitting the application for exploitation concessions, the company carried out drilling using a forest tractor with an attached drill and analysed drill core samples from the concession sites to determine whether the identified mineralization is of such grade as to warrant commencing actual mining activities, it has no intention of applying for an environmental permit due to the current price of nickel.3 It is therefore too soon, according to the State party, to assess the extent of any possible infringement on the petitioners’ possibilities to practise reindeer husbandry. 2.14 In relation to articles 5 (a) and 6 of the Convention, the State party alleges that, when determining whether any of the substantive obligations to prevent, protect against and remedy violations have been breached, the Committee must first determine whether an act of racial discrimination has occurred, because the Convention does not protect certain rights as such, but aims to protect persons against racial discrimination.4 According to the State party, there is no breach of article 5 (a) of the Convention, as racial discrimination did not occur in the current case because the petitioners are treated on an equal footing with landowners concerned by the project. In particular, the State party alleges that the petitioners have been consulted to the extent required under national law in matters regarding mining concessions, as any other party affected, and that they have failed to demonstrate that they have been subjected to discrimination on account of their ethnic origin during the domestic proceedings. Moreover, according to the State party, there is no breach of article 6 of the Convention, as 1 2 3 4 A/HRC/12/34, paras. 48–49. A/HRC/24/41, paras. 27, 31–34 and 84–87. The market price would have to increase substantially for the project to be financially sustainable. The State party mentions L.R. et al. v. Slovakia (CERD/C/66/D/31/2003 and Corr.1), para. 10.2, and Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, communication No. 167/1984, para. 32.2. 5