E/C.12/76/D/251/2022 E/C.12/76/D/289/2022 5.10 With regard to the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors submit that, in a ruling that set a precedent (KHO 2013:179), the Supreme Administrative Court held that reindeer-herding Sami were not entitled to appeal against a decision to grant a reservation pursuant to the Mining Act. On the basis of this precedent, the Sami have been denied standing in domestic proceedings seeking to challenge area reservations. 5.11 Lastly, with regard to the alleged lack of substantiation, the authors observe that the State party cites only the ruling in which the Supreme Administrative Court set its precedent, in which the Court held that a reservation as such had no impact on reindeer herding or the right of the Sami as an Indigenous People to maintain and develop their culture. The Court did not examine how their rights and culture were affected by an area reservation but instead issued a blanket, in abstracto denial of such effects. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In its observations of 14 July 2023, the State party submits the following common considerations in respect of both communications: (a) according to the Constitution, the Sami have linguistic and cultural self-government in their native region, and the right to reindeer herding is a Sami historical usufruct right; (b) article 15 of the Covenant, like the Constitution, guarantees the right to transfer culture and language to the next generations; (c) in interpreting the provisions of the Covenant, it is necessary to take into account article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, according to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, must be read in the light of the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination; (d) the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reflects the legal principles and aspirational goals followed by Finland; (e) a working group is preparing a reform of the Act on the Sami Parliament to strengthen the current obligation to negotiate in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent; (f) as reindeer herding cooperatives carry out their activities over a wide area, it is necessary to reconcile “different interests” with regard to land use; (g) the Mining Act is not discriminatory, as it applies to both Sami and non-Sami and the determination of the owner is ultimately a private law issue; and (h) a new Mining Act entered into force on 1 June 2023 (Act No. 505/2023), setting additional conditions for the granting of a mining permit and for extending the validity of an exploration permit and setting a new reservation fee to discourage reservations that are unnecessarily extensive. 6.2 With regard to the merits of communication No. 251/2022, the State party submits: (a) that the permit procedure included an extensive opinion-gathering and consultation procedure; (b) that consensus was sought on concrete solutions that could minimize the effects of mineral exploration on the rights of the Sami (such as the placement of barriers or tarpaulins to control the movement of reindeer and thus prevent their dispersal); (c) that the exploration permit decision included conditions aimed at reducing the harm caused to reindeer herding; and (d) that the Mining Act requires the exploration permit holder to pay annual compensation to landowners in the area. 6.3 With regard to the merits of communication No. 289/2022, the State party observed 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 an area reservation decision. It adds that, in 2014, the Forest Agency concluded an agreement with the Sami Parliament on forest management, according to which it will not give consent to exploration within the Sami homeland unless the Safety and Chemicals Agency has given its authorization. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In their comments of 28 August 2023 regarding communication No. 251/2022, the authors argue that they did not consent to the exploration project, contrary to the State party’s claims. There is no reference to agreement in the minutes of the meetings, at which none of the authors was present. They objected to the project and appealed through the domestic courts before submitting the communication. GE.24-18518 9