CCPR/C/137/D/3585/2019 adequate compensation, for any acts by third parties carried out on their lands after they filed their native title claim in 2012 to secure their lands. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 7 February 2020, the State party submitted that the author’s claims under articles 1, 26 and 27 of the Covenant were inadmissible. The claim under article 1 is inadmissible because the right to self-determination cannot be the subject of a communication and is not relevant to the substance of the current communication, which relates to the procedural fairness of native title proceedings and the ability to effectively participate in them. The claims under articles 26 and 27 are inadmissible for lack of substantiation, not arising separately from the substantive question relating to procedural fairness under article 14 (1). 4.2 On the merits, the State party submits that the author’s triple claim on article 14 (1) – for lack of consideration of the evidence of the Wunna Nyiyaparli, lack of legal aid and the impossibility of seeking the revision of the native title determination – is without merit. 4.3 On the alleged lack of consideration of the evidence, the State party argues that the Federal Court provided the Wunna Nyiyaparli with numerous opportunities to prepare and submit evidence, and that the filing of such evidence would not have made any difference as the Court’s decision was “undoubtedly correct”, as observed by the Federal Court in the judgment of appeal (see para. 2.21 above). According to the State party, the Federal Court’s decision not to adjourn the proceedings was therefore reasoned and justified on the grounds of the lack of participation of the Wunna Nyiyaparli and their non-compliance with the Court’s orders, and considering that the Court must resolve disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. 4.4 The State party rejects that it failed to provide legal aid, as the Wunna Nyiyaparli were entitled to apply for legal assistance through the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which funds the native title representative bodies. Nevertheless, in assessing applications and considering the availability of funds, the representative body must determine priorities. With respect to overlapping claims, the representative body must make all reasonable efforts to minimize the number of applications covering same lands or waters. In this sense, if the representative body is already representing a native title claimant in relation to specific lands or waters and receives a request from a new claimant in relation to the same area, it must not represent the new claimant unless it has obtained consent to do so from the original claimant. The State party argues that, in any event, as there is no obligation under article 14 (1) to provide legal aid beyond criminal proceedings, the lack of legal aid does not violate the Covenant. 4.5 On the impossibility of seeking the revision of a native title determination, the State party submits that it does not constitute a breach under article 14 (1), nor does it deprive the Wunna Nyiyaparli from an effective remedy under article 2 (3). Indeed, as native title determination provides legal protection regarding lands rights, there is a clear justification and objective behind the limits to revocation and variation of such determinations. 4.6 The State party submits that, should the Committee examine the merits of the communication under article 27 of the Covenant, there is no breach because Australia gives effect to its obligations under this article by implementing a system to determine native title claims. 4.7 Finally, the State party submits that, should the Committee examine the merits of the communication under article 26, native title determination claims are not grounds for discrimination under that article and it is unfounded that the Wunna Nyiyaparli experienced differential treatment compared with the other party. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 2 April 2020, the author responded that the Wunna Nyiyaparli had not deliberately failed to comply with the Court’s orders; they did not have the money to access the Internet, so most of the time they were out of contact and unable to receive emails and had been unaware that they were required to take steps to prepare for the hearing on the separate question. GE.23-13390 9