CRC/C/97/D/172/2022 9.16 The Committee considers that it is precisely because the State party is aware that transferring Sami culture to Sami children is becoming increasingly difficult that it must be particularly cautious when regulating activities that may endanger the continuity of their culture. 9.17 In the light of the above, the Committee considers that article 30 of the Convention enshrines the right of Indigenous children to enjoy their traditional territories and that any decision affecting them should be taken with their effective participation.24 9.18 The Committee observes that, in the State party, the procedure for an exploration permit application begins with a public announcement of the application on the bulletin board of the municipality and the notification of the legally recognized landowners. The Committee further observes that, under the Mining Act, the State party is required to identify the impacts of exploratory activities on the right of the Sami to maintain their culture, but that, according to the Supreme Administrative Court, the Mining Act does not provide further stipulations as to the practical execution of the assessment in each individual case. In the present case, the Käsivarsi Reindeer Herding Cooperative was invited to submit comments and, following the public announcement and procedure for obtaining comments, a negotiation meeting was arranged in connection with the permit consideration. The Committee also notes that, for the Supreme Administrative Court, it was sufficient that the permit holder sought to minimize the disruptions caused to Sami reindeer herding and sought to notify the Käsivarsi Reindeer Herding Cooperative of exploration activities and their scheduling. 9.19 The Committee recalls that article 32 (2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples provides that States are to consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. 9.20 The Committee considers that it is incumbent upon States parties to prove that they organized and held consultations in good faith and with a view to reaching a consensus. In particular, whenever Indigenous Peoples’ rights may be affected by projects carried out in their traditional territories, an adequate and effective process for obtaining free, prior and informed consent must imply not only the sharing of information and the gathering of comments from the community affected, but also an interactive and continuous dialogue, from the early stages and through culturally appropriate procedures, with a genuine and sincere ambition to reach consensus as opposed to starting the process with predefined ideas according to which the project must necessarily be carried out.25 9.21 The Committee also considers that impact assessments should be part of the consultation process with Indigenous Peoples. Environmental and social impact studies, conducted by independent and technically competent entities, should be part of this consultation process, and it is based on these studies that consultations must be held from the early stages and before the design of the project. 9.22 The Committee recalls that, under article 12 of the Convention, it is the obligation of the States parties to provide children with the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting them. In application of this article to Indigenous children, States parties must play an important role in promoting consultations with Indigenous children on all matters affecting them, 26 including issues concerning their traditional territories and environment.27 The Committee moreover considers that Indigenous 24 25 26 27 14 See also Human Rights Committee, Roy et al. v. Australia, para. 8.6. See also general comment No. 11 (2009), para. 20; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Ågren et al. v. Sweden, para. 6.18; A/HRC/39/62; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Judgment, 27 June 2012, para. 167; and Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment, 28 November 2007, para. 133; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources (2010), paras. 318 and 319. General comment No. 11 (2009), para. 39. A/HRC/48/74, para. 20.