CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015 community to effective representation in the Sami Parliament must have a reasonable and objective justification and be consistent with the other provisions of the Covenant, 27 including the principle of internal self-determination relating to indigenous peoples. 6.11 In the current case, the author is a member of the Sami people and a member of the Sami Parliament, of which she is President, and as such is actively engaged in the electoral process. The Committee observes the author’s uncontested submissions that the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court, from 2011 onwards, departed from the consensual interpretation of section 3 of the Act on the Sami Parliament for determining membership in the electoral rolls of that Parliament. In particular, the Court failed to require satisfaction of at least one of the objective criteria in the majority of cases, instead applying an “overall consideration” and examining whether a person’s own opinion about considering themselves a Sami was “strong”, and thereby infringed on the capacity of the Sami people to exercise, through the Sami Parliament, a key dimension of Sami self-determination in determining who is a Sami.28 The Committee considers that the Supreme Administrative Court rulings affected the rights of the author and of the Sami community to which she belongs to engage in the electoral process regarding the institution intended by the State party to secure the effective internal self-determination, and the right to their own language and culture, of members of the Sami indigenous people. The Committee further considers that by departing in this manner from the consensual interpretation of the law determining membership in the electoral rolls of the Sami Parliament, the Court’s interpretation was not based on reasonable and objective criteria. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the facts before it amount to a violation of the author’s rights under article 25, read alone and in conjunction with article 27, as interpreted in the light of article 1 of the Covenant. 6.12 Having found a violation of article 25, read alone and in conjunction with article 27, the Committee does not consider it necessary to examine the author’s other claims under the Covenant. 7. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 25, read alone and in conjunction with article 27, of the Covenant. 8. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to review section 3 of the Act on the Sami Parliament with a view to ensuring that the criteria for eligibility to vote in Sami Parliament elections are defined and applied in a manner that respects the right of the Sami people to exercise their internal selfdetermination, in accordance with articles 25 and 27 of the Covenant. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 9. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party, including by ensuring their accessibility to the members of the Sami indigenous community. 27 28 12 Lovelace v. Canada, para. 16. See the decision on admissibility for Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, paras. 2.8–2.10. GE.19-04714