CRC/C/97/D/172/2022 3.4 The authors also submit that, in a situation where the sustainability and transmission to new generations of Sami reindeer herding culture is already under threat, the violations needing to be assessed in the context of the cumulative effects of earlier interventions on their territory, which are now being aggravated by ongoing climate change, any new intervention allowed by the State party also amounts to a violation of their right, as Indigenous children, individually and in community with each other and with other Sami, not to be denied the enjoyment of their own culture, as protected by article 30 of the Convention, specifically if such denial is undertaken without their free, prior and informed consent. 10 3.5 The authors further submit that all the above-mentioned provisions should be interpreted in the light of article 24 of the Convention, mentioning in particular paragraphs 2, 5, 7 and 50 of the Committee’s general comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. 3.6 The authors submit that all the above-mentioned provisions should be read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (1) of the Convention. Regarding their right not to be discriminated against, the authors submit that their status as children who are members of the Sami people, together with the persistent denial of their right to their traditional lands, makes them subject to substantial, indirect and systematic discrimination in respect of the unilateral power of the State party to conduct (through the Geological Survey of Finland), authorize (through the Safety and Chemicals Agency) and uphold the authorization to conduct (through the courts) mineral exploration works on their traditional territory without the free, prior and informed consent of their community. In addition, according to the authors, the discriminatory nature of the Mining Act is demonstrated by the fact that, as the State has declared itself to be the owner of Sami lands, it will receive annual compensation from its own agency (the Geological Survey of Finland), while, by contrast, the Sami, who are not recognized as owners of their traditional lands, will receive no compensation for the adverse impact on their lands. The authors clarify that this does not imply that they would accept monetary compensation as an adequate remedy and claim that no landowner is in the same situation as the Sami, for whom even the right to compensation is denied. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its observations of 17 March 2022, the State party submits, first, that it has no reasonable cause to deviate from the position of the Supreme Administrative Court, as the Sami had an opportunity to participate in the permit procedure, during which mutual agreement was reached, and that, taken as a whole, the exploration area is relatively small. Second, the State party submits that the Mining Act is not discriminatory, as it applies to both Sami and non-Sami, and that the authors cannot claim compensation, as the lands in question are owned by the State. Third, the State party indicates that the Geological Survey of Finland conducts self-financed geological research for the needs of businesses and society in general; it does not conduct mining but surveys the bedrock to map the mineral potential of the region, focusing on data collection. 4.2 The State party also recalls some relevant domestic legislation. First, the Constitution provides that the Sami have linguistic and cultural self-government in their native region and that their right to maintain and develop their own language and culture is a safeguard of the practice of their traditional livelihoods, such as reindeer herding. The Human Rights Committee has connected the concept of the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination not only with article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but also with article 27 thereof, which served as a model for the Constitution of Finland. Second, the Act on the Sami Parliament obligates public authorities to negotiate with the Sami Parliament in relation to all far-reaching and important measures that may directly and in a specific way affect the status of the Sami as an Indigenous People (sect. 9). In November 2017, the Ministry of Justice issued a memorandum – prepared with the Sami Parliament – on the obligation to negotiate under the Act on the Sami Parliament, according to which consensus must be sought in all negotiations between the public authorities and the Sami Parliament. Third, the Mining Act provides that the permit authority should determine the impacts caused by the planned activities on the rights of the Sami as an Indigenous People to maintain and 10 6 They refer to paragraphs 16, 17 and 29 of general comment No. 11 (2009).