E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 3.3 In both communications, the authors argue that their claims of violations of the Covenant must be assessed in the context of the cumulative effects of earlier interventions on their lands, aggravated by ongoing climate change, leading to an increase in work for the Sami and unpredictability in the direction and timing of the reindeer’s movements. They draw attention to the concern that the Committee has expressed about the impact of climate change on Indigenous Peoples living in the Arctic region.5 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on admissibility in relation to communications No. 251/2022 and No. 289/2022 on 14 March and 15 October 2022, respectively. The State party submits that both communications have an actio popularis nature, as the authors lack locus standi and the communications are premature. For communication No. 251/2022, the authors have not yet been personally affected by the permit, as the Geological Survey of Finland has not taken any practical measures since receiving it, has no ongoing project or exploration activities in the area, has no potential survey drillings scheduled and will not conduct a survey until the communication has been decided. 4.2 For both communications, the State party submits that the areas in question are owned by the State, that determining the owner is ultimately a private law issue and that the Mining Act is not discriminatory, as it applies to both Sami and non-Sami persons, regardless of origin. Communication No. 251/2022 4.3 The State party submits that the Geological Survey of Finland conducts self-financed geological research for the needs of businesses and society in general; it does not conduct mining but surveys the bedrock to map the mineral potential of the region, focusing on data collection. It has no reasonable grounds to deviate from the position of the Supreme Administrative Court, as, taken as a whole, the exploration area is relatively small-scale, and the permit contains conditions to alleviate and prevent damage to reindeer herding during the exploration. 4.4 The State party recalls relevant domestic legislation. First, the Constitution provides that the Sami have linguistic and cultural self-government in their native region and the right to maintain and develop their own language and culture, which safeguards the practice of their traditional livelihoods, such as reindeer herding. The Human Rights Committee has connected the concept of the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination not only with article 1 but also with article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which served as a model for the Constitution of Finland. Second, the Act on the Sami Parliament obligates the public authorities to negotiate with the Sami Parliament regarding all far-reaching and important measures that may directly affect the status of the Sami as an Indigenous People. In November 2017, the Ministry of Justice issued a memorandum on the obligation to negotiate under the Act on the Sami Parliament, according to which consensus must be sought in all negotiations between the public authorities and the Sami Parliament. Third, the Mining Act provides that the permit authority must establish the impacts caused by the planned activities on the rights of the Sami and consider measures required for reducing and preventing damage. A permit must not be granted if activities would cause considerable harm to reindeer herding. 4.5 The State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to their allegations concerning climate change. 4.6 The State party also submits that the Committee should decline to consider the communication, as it does not reveal any clear or concrete disadvantage suffered by the authors and does not raise any serious issue of general importance. 4.7 Lastly, the State party claims that the communication is manifestly ill-founded on the ground that the authors have failed to substantiate how their rights under each of the articles 5 6 E/C.12/RUS/CO/6, paras. 42 and 43; and E/C.12/CAN/CO/6, paras. 53 and 54. GE.24-18518