E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 10.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ claims are of an actio popularis and premature nature and that the authors thus lack victim status. The Committee notes, however, that the authors allege that the State party failed to obtain their free, prior and informed consent or to make good faith efforts to obtain it when granting the exploration permit (communication No. 251/2022) and the reservation (communication No. 289/2022) in respect of areas on their traditional territory and that this allegedly constitutes a violation of their own rights, irrespective of any future development. The Committee accordingly considers that the authors have victim status and that article 2 of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communications. 10.4 The Committee notes the State party’s claims of inadmissibility for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies regarding communication No. 251/2022, on the basis that the authors did not raise an allegation relating to climate change before the domestic courts, and regarding communication No. 289/2022, on the basis that the authors did not appeal against the decision granting the reservation. 10.5 The Committee notes the authors’ argument, regarding communication No. 251/2022, that the issue of climate change has been raised before the Committee to substantiate their claims and not as part of a separate claim based on climate change. The Committee also notes the authors’ uncontested argument that they explicitly invoked before the national courts the same substantive rights that are invoked in the communication (rights to take part in the cultural life of the community, to traditional property, not to be discriminated against and to work or livelihood of their own choice). The Committee observes that the authors pursued their claims through the courts, including the highest competent court, namely, the Supreme Administrative Court. The Committee considers, therefore, that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted and concludes that communication No. 251/2022 is admissible under article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.6 Regarding communication No. 289/2022, the Committee notes the authors’ argument that there is no domestic remedy to exhaust in respect of either the absence of free, prior and informed consent or the granting of a reservation. The Committee notes the State party’s observations that the Sami do not have an automatic right to appeal against reservation decisions, which allegedly have no impact on the practice of reindeer herding or on the rights of the Sami as an Indigenous People, and that, according to the legislation currently in force and the well-established case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, the authors did not have a right to appeal against such an area reservation decision. The Committee therefore concludes that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of communication No. 289/2022. 10.7 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communications should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on the basis that the Supreme Administrative Court has already held that a reservation decision does not affect the practice of reindeer herding (communication No. 289/2022) and that the Committee cannot act as a fourth instance (communication No. 251/2022). However, the Committee notes the authors’ arguments that, in communication No. 251/2022, the domestic courts did not adequately examine the impact on their rights and concluded that the international standard relating to the rights of Indigenous Peoples of free, prior and informed consent had been met by merely giving the Sami an opportunity to be heard and that, in communication No. 289/2022, the ruling in which the Supreme Administrative Court set its precedent did not examine how the rights and culture of the Sami were affected by an area reservation but instead amounted to a blanket, in abstracto denial of such effects. 10.8 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims, for the purpose of admissibility, that the State party’s failure to ensure a process of free, prior and informed consent in the granting of the mineral exploration permit and the reservation has violated their rights to enjoy their own culture (art. 15 (1) (a)), read alone and in conjunction with their rights to an adequate standard of living, through their traditional means of livelihood, that is, reindeer herding (art. 11), to non-discrimination (art. 2 (2)) and to GE.24-18518 11