CRC/C/97/D/172/2022 develop their own language and culture and should consider measures required for reducing and preventing harm, assessing the harm that would be caused to reindeer herding by activity conducted under the permit (sect. 38). A permit must not be granted if activities conducted under the permit would cause considerable harm to reindeer herding or substantially undermine the preconditions for engaging in traditional Sami livelihoods or otherwise maintaining and developing the Sami culture (sect. 50). 4.3 With regard to admissibility, the State party submits that the communication has an actio popularis nature, as the Geological Survey of Finland has not taken any practical measures since being granted the exploration permit, meaning that the authors have not yet been personally affected by it. The communication is therefore premature, and the alleged violations are mainly hypothetical. Linking this point to the merits of the case, the State party, while acknowledging that article 30 of the Convention, in the same way as article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, guarantees the right to transfer culture and language to the next generations, which is a precondition for the maintenance and development of culture (and is therefore of paramount importance for the transfer of traditional reindeer herding, as well as the Northern Sami language, to the next generations), submits that transferring Sami culture to Sami children is becoming increasingly difficult because as many as 70 per cent of all Sami children now live outside the Sami homeland. 4.4 The State party also submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to their allegations concerning climate change. 4.5 Lastly, the State party claims that the communication is manifestly ill-founded, the authors having failed to substantiate in what way their rights under each of the articles of the Convention that they invoke have been violated. The State party links that claim with its argument that the core of the communication appears to be the authors’ dissatisfaction with the outcome of the domestic proceedings, yet it is not the role of the Committee on the Rights of the Child to act as a fourth instance. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In their comments of 5 May 2022, supplemented on 26 September 2022, the authors observe that several of the State party’s observations on admissibility raise matters pertaining to the merits of the case and demonstrate ignorance of the nature and rationale of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. In particular, the State party misunderstands the claim under article 2 (1) of the Convention. As explained by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Sami must be treated differently from non-Sami users of so-called government lands precisely because they are Sami; the mining legislation discriminates against the Sami reindeer herders specifically, not by treating them differently from the rest of the population but by not doing so, ignoring the particularities of Sami cultural identity, traditional livelihoods and dependence on reindeer herding for survival. 11 5.2 According to the authors, another matter pertaining to the merits of the case and demonstrating ignorance of reindeer behaviour and Sami reindeer herding is the State party’s assertion, itself a repetition of the finding of the Supreme Administrative Court, that, taken as a whole, the exploration area is relatively small and that the exploration will be temporary. Indeed, disrupting herding in the critical winter months in the scarce winter herding pastures would cause permanent harm to the reindeer herds and to Sami reindeer herding (see para. 2.8 above). Moreover, the significance of the area is more critical than ever before due to the cumulative effects of other, competing uses by third parties of their traditional lands. 5.3 The authors contend that the State party’s submission that the Geological Survey of Finland has a merely scientific mission is also misleading. According to the authors, the State party made a crucial admission by confirming that the mission of the Geological Survey of Finland included serving the needs of businesses and society in general (see para. 4.1 above). While the Geological Survey of Finland does not engage in mining proper, its activities promote “the competitiveness of business and regions” 12 and pave the way for private 11 12 Ågren et al. v. Sweden (CERD/C/102/D/54/2013), paras. 6.7, 6.12 and 6.23. Finland, Act on the Geological Survey of Finland, sect. 2. 7