CERD/C/102/D/54/2013 issued on 11 October 2009. According to the State party, between two and six representatives of the Vapsten Sami village attended the meetings organized by the mining company, during which they highlighted a number of risks connected with the project. Finally, a report on the effects of the project on reindeer husbandry, drafted by a consulting company contracted by the mining company, included suggestions for a number of damage-reduction measures, including appropriate siting of the sand deposits, the open-pit mines and the roads, and of fences to prevent animals from wandering into those areas. According to the State party, the mining company stated that several of the recommendations made would be effective and possible to implement. 2.6 In February 2010, the company applied for exploitation concessions for the areas Rönnbäcken K No. 1 and Rönnbäcken K No. 2. The application documents were sent for observations to the Västerbotten County Administrative Board, affected property owners and other interested parties, including the Vapsten Sami village. The Vapsten Sami village stated that, if the exploitation concessions were granted, important core areas would be lost and the passage over Rönnbäcken would become unusable, obstructing reindeer husbandry. However, the Västerbotten County Administrative Board concluded that there was no impediment to granting the concessions, provided that the mining operations were adapted, as far as possible, to the reindeer husbandry. 2.7 On 23 June 2010, the Chief Mining Inspector granted the exploitation concessions for Rönnbäcken K No. 1 and Rönnbäcken K No. 2, on the condition that the mining company engage in annual consultations with the Vapsten Sami village to clarify the measures required to mitigate disturbance caused by the mining operations to reindeer husbandry. The Vapsten Sami village appealed the decision to the Government, which rejected the appeal, considering that it was possible for reindeer husbandry to continue in the area. The Sami village requested a judicial review by the Supreme Administrative Court. The Court revoked the decision, because it had not included an assessment of which of the conflicting national interests – mineral extraction or reindeer husbandry – should be given priority, and requested a reexamination of the case. 2.8 In December 2011, before the new decision in the case concerning Rönnbäcken K No. 1 and Rönnbäcken K No. 2 had been taken or the assessment requested by the Supreme Administrative Court had been submitted, the company applied for an exploitation concession with respect to the area Rönnbäcken K No. 3. According to the environmental impact statement, the project would be compatible with reindeer husbandry. The application documents were sent for observations to the Västerbotten County Administrative Board, affected property owners and other interested parties, including the Vapsten Sami village. On 1 October 2012, the Chief Mining Inspector granted the exploitation concession sought for Rönnbäcken No. 3, indicating that the mining company must engage in annual consultations with the Vapsten Sami village and work to minimize the adverse impact of the mining operations on reindeer husbandry. The Vapsten Sami village appealed the decision to the Government, requesting that the three cases be processed jointly. 2.9 On 22 August 2013, the appeals concerning all three concessions were rejected, it being noted that the area designated as being of national interest for reindeer husbandry was considerably larger than the areas covered by the exploitation concessions, so that the concessions would only apply to a small part of the areas available for reindeer husbandry. Accordingly, the petitioners would have possibilities to practise reindeer husbandry elsewhere. On 29 October 2014, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the petitioners’ application for a judicial review, ruling that the Government’s decision concerning the three exploitation concessions was to be upheld. Considerations regarding the merits 2.10 The State party emphasizes that the granting of the exploitation concessions does not constitute a violation of article 5 (d) (v) of the Convention. Indeed, the Sami’s right to practise reindeer husbandry under Swedish legislation is not a right of ownership of land and does not entail formal title to or ownership of the land in question, but is a right of usufruct, which allows them to use land and water for their own maintenance and that of the reindeer. 4