CCPR/C/137/D/3585/2019 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the claim under article 1 is inadmissible because the right to self-determination cannot be the subject of a communication. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that the right to self-determination should be taken into consideration when examining the claims because, based on the definition of this right provided in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the deprivation by the Court of the right of the Wunna Nyiyaparli to “speak for” their traditional lands, and the consequent removal of their ability to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development by interrupting their relation to such lands, directly implicates the right to self-determination in the facts of the case. 7.3 The Committee recalls that, although it does not have competence under the current development of its jurisprudence to consider a claim alleging a violation of article 1 of the Covenant, it may, when relevant, interpret that article in determining whether rights protected in parts II and III of the Covenant have been violated.24 Therefore, the Committee is of the view that, in the present communication, it may take article 1 into account in interpreting articles 14 (1), 26 and 27 of the Covenant. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has affirmed that, “in addition to being a form of intangible heritage, self-determination is linked to the effective realization of the rights of indigenous peoples”.25 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author has failed to substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, the claims under articles 26 and 27. 7.5 The Committee also notes that the Wunna Nyiyaparli self-identify as Indigenous, and that their laws, culture, language and traditions are intimately linked to their care and control of and access to their traditional lands. The Committee further notes that the State party made a consent determination of native title over the Wunna Nyiyaparli alleged traditional territory in favour of other applicants, without, allegedly, the effective participation of the Wunna Nyiyaparli. The Committee therefore considers that the claim under article 27 is sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 7.6 In relation to the admissibility of the claim under article 26, the Committee takes note of the allegations that the Wunna Nyiyaparli were discriminated against in the determination of their property rights, having experienced unjustified differential treatment in comparison with the other Indigenous applicant, having had to litigate in two separate trials on the same matter (firstly the determination of their rights on the lands and secondly the determination of their Nyiyaparli origin, the proceedings for which they had no possibility to submit evidence), and the State party having failed to provide them with legal representation, unlike the other party. The Committee considers that these issues are closely related to the merits and that, for the purpose of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated her claim. 7.7 The Committee notes that the State party does not allege that the claim in relation to article 14 (1) is inadmissible and that it does not allege lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies for any of the author’s claims. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded, under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, from examining the present communication. 7.8 Therefore, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar it raises issues under article 14 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and articles 26 and 27, all read in the light of article 1, and proceeds with its considerations of the merits. 24 25 GE.23-13390 Gillot et al. v. France, para. 13.4; and Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (CCPR/C/119/D/2668/2015), para. 8.6. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Pérez Guartambel v. Ecuador (CERD/C/106/D/61/2017), para. 4.6. See also Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 26 (2022), para. 11. 11