CRC/C/97/D/172/2022 7.5 Lastly, the authors welcome the submission by the Government to Parliament, on 17 November 2022, of a bill on amendments to the Act on the Sami Parliament that would bring Finland closer to complying with the international standard of free, prior and informed consent (see para. 6.2 above). Nevertheless, even that bill, if enacted, would have no effect in respect of violations that have already occurred. The pending bill is highly controversial, and it is quite probable that it will not be enacted. Currently, the rules are set by the Mining Act: primacy is given to the interests of the exploration permit holder, which is instructed to adjust its operations to mitigate harms to reindeer husbandry. This does not meet the standard of free, prior and informed consent; instead, the Sami should be informed of the activities planned so that they can decide to remove their reindeer from the area. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 20 of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, under article 7 (d) of the Optional Protocol, it shall declare inadmissible any communication that concerns a matter that has already been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee takes note of the authors’ statement that other members of their community have submitted communications to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concerning the same mineral exploration project. The Committee on the Rights of the Child notes that the communications procedure of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights constitutes a “procedure of international investigation or settlement” within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision.16 The Committee on the Rights of the Child also recalls that the “same matter” within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision means one and the same claim relating to the same individual, the same facts and the same substantive rights.17 Given that the complaints currently pending before the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have not been filed by the same authors, the Committee on the Rights of the Child concludes that they do not relate to the “same matter” as the present communication and that article 7 (d) is therefore not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible due to its actio popularis and premature nature, as the authors have not yet been personally affected by the exploration permit (see para. 4.3 above). The Committee notes, however, that the authors are alleging violations of their own rights under the Convention, which have already occurred as a result of the granting and upholding of the granting of the permit, without the free, prior and informed consent of the Sami. The Committee considers that, if the granting of the permit in respect of an area on the authors’ traditional territory occurred without seeking the free, prior and informed consent of their community, this fact may represent in itself, irrespective of future developments, a breach of the authors’ rights under the Convention. 18 Taking all the above-mentioned factors into account, the Committee concludes that the authors have victim status under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to their allegations concerning climate change (see para. 4.4 above). The Committee also notes the authors’ argument that, while they did raise claims concerning climate change in the domestic proceedings, the issue of climate change is raised before the 16 17 18 10 See, mutatis mutandis, Human Rights Committee, Moreno de Castillo v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 and CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015/Corr.1), para. 8.3. M.F. v. Switzerland (CRC/C/94/D/125/2020), para. 6.2; and, mutatis mutandis, A.B. v. Finland (CRC/C/86/D/51/2018), para. 11.2. See also Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Ågren et al. v. Sweden, paras. 1.5 and 6.18.