CRC/C/97/D/172/2022 Committee only to substantiate their claims under articles 8, 27 and 30 of the Convention and not to present a separate claim based on climate change. The Committee further takes note of the authors’ uncontested argument that they explicitly invoked before the national courts the same substantive rights that are invoked in the present communication (the rights to take part in the cultural life of their community, to traditional property, not to be discriminated against, to work or livelihood of their own choice and to identity). The Committee observes that the authors pursued their claims all the way to the Supreme Court. The Committee considers, therefore, that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted and concludes that article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 8.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, as the authors are asking the Committee to act as a fourth instance to review the outcome of the domestic proceedings (see para. 4.5 above). However, the Committee considers that the authors’ claim that the alleged breach of the international standard of free, prior and informed consent in the granting of the permit for mineral exploration on their traditional territory violated their rights under articles 8, 27 and 30, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (1), of the Convention has been sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility. The Committee nevertheless considers that the claim based on articles 8, 27 and 30, interpreted in the light of article 24, of the Convention has not been sufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible pursuant to article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee further considers that the authors’ claim of an alleged breach of the international standard of free, prior and informed consent in the granting of the permit for mineral exploration also raises, in substance, issues under articles 8, 27 and 30, read in conjunction with article 12, of the Convention. 8.7 The Committee concludes that the communication is admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 8, 27 and 30, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and 12, of the Convention, and proceeds to its examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 10 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ general claim that, in the current circumstances created by climate change and other outside threats to the sustainability and transmission of Sami reindeer herding culture, the mineral exploration permit granted by the State party for exploration for copper, iron and gold on their traditional territory during the critical winter months in scarce winter herding pastures, without an impact assessment and without obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of their community, violates their fundamental rights under the Convention as children who are members of the Sami people. In particular, the Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that the project would cause irreparable harm to their reindeer herding community by disrupting the whole annual reindeer herding cycle, making Sami reindeer herding unsustainable and therefore damaging a core dimension of their rights, as Indigenous children, to be active and willing recipients of the unhindered transmission of: (a) the Sami way of life (art. 30, concerning continuity of their cultural heritage); (b) the Sami identity (art. 8); and (c) traditional Sami economic activities based on reindeer herding (art. 27, concerning livelihood and adequate standard of living). The Committee takes note of the authors’ argument that all those elements (culture, language, identity and livelihood) are strongly dependent on traditional reindeer herding and that reindeer herding is of significant importance for the maintenance and protection of traditional knowledge for future generations. The Committee also takes note of the authors’ claim relating to the intergenerational nature of Indigenous Peoples’ right to transmit their culture to new generations and the fact that a chain of cultural transmission is interfered with much earlier than an Indigenous culture is destroyed. 9.3 The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that, while recognizing that traditional Sami livelihoods, including reindeer herding, constitute the foundation of Sami cultural life and language, such that it is for the State party of paramount importance to ensure the transfer of traditional reindeer herding to the next generations, 11