CERD/C/102/D/54/2013 lack of relevance of compensation, as the loss of the area cannot be compensated for in monetary terms. 3.7 In addition, the petitioners claim that the State party breached their right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice, as enshrined in article 5 (a) of the Convention, as it neglected, when allowing mining concessions on indigenous lands, to consider the fundamental property right of Vapsten as an indigenous reindeer herding community (and not as a Swedish property right holder) not to be discriminated against in that respect. Indeed, the petitioners claim that the mining legislation and policies discriminate against the group of Sami reindeer herders specifically, not by treating them differently from the Swedish population, but by not doing so and by being blind to the particularities of the indigenous Sami culture, with its dependence on reindeer herding for survival. Mining activities have a devastating effect on the Sami group that does not occur in the context of the Swedish majority population, as it places their traditional livelihoods and very cultural identity at imminent risk. In this regard, due to their nature-based means of livelihood, the Sami are disproportionately affected by mining activities, since mining per se has a discriminatory effect and amounts to discrimination against persons of Sami ethnicity. According to the petitioners, this discrimination contained in the mining legislation is the root cause of these violations, and all breaches of their rights are a direct result of the law discriminating against Sami reindeer herding communities compared with Swedish land property rights holders, by not taking into account their specificity. In this regard, the petitioners recall that the right to non-discrimination demands not only equal treatment of analogous situations, but also differential treatment of those that are culturally different from the majority population; they refer to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has considered that laws that do not, in themselves, involve impermissible discrimination but which nonetheless disproportionately and adversely affect members of a particular group, are discriminatory.9 The petitioners also recall that both the Committee10 and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, in her report on Sami people in the Sápmi region,11 have already drawn the State party’s attention to that aspect of its mining legislation, which does not conform with the Convention. 3.8 Finally, the petitioners claim that the State party also breached their right to effective protection and remedies, pursuant to article 6 of the Convention, as they have not had access to any domestic institution that could evaluate the taking of the land from the perspective of fundamental property rights. Indeed, Swedish mining legislation prevents them from arguing a violation of the right to property before domestic courts, and the Supreme Administrative Court is only allowed to review the application of domestic law when it is the law itself that has caused the breach of rights. The petitioners point out that the environmental permit process cannot include an examination of the fundamental right to traditional property, nor an evaluation of whether the mining activities should be disallowed due to their negative impact on Sami reindeer herding; it will only decide on what mitigation measures must be taken. The petitioners refer to an electronic message received by the Vapsten community on 16 September 2015 in which the Land and Environment Court confirmed that there were no previous examples of it not allowing a mining project to proceed. Thus, since the Court does not consider whether there has been a violation of the right to property, the petitioners had no access to an effective remedy. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners recall that, in a similar case, the Land and Environment Court had refused to consider the impact of a mine on reindeer herding, despite the community’s explicit request for it to do so; the Court was of the opinion that the objections raised by the Vapsten community had already been dealt with at the concession stage and thus were not of such a character that they could be tried at the environmental permit stage.12 Finally, the petitioners substantiate the violation of article 6 on the grounds that, whereas Swedish landowners can be adequately provided with full market-value compensation for their property, monetary allotment cannot compensate Sami 9 10 11 12 8 European Court of Human Rights, D.H. and others v. Czech Republic, application No. 57325/00, judgment, 13 November 2007. The petitioners refer to CERD/C/SWE/CO/19-21, para. 17. A/HRC/33/42/Add.3. The petitioners refer to Umeå District Court, Land and Environment Court, decision, 28 August 2003, in cases No. M 112-01 and No. M 113-01 (Svartliden, Fäboliden and Stortjärnhobben).