CRC/C/97/D/172/2022 under which the exploration may be carried out, the aim being to reduce the harm caused to reindeer herding: exploratory drilling may be carried out only outside the reindeer calving season, must be limited at certain points in time that are important for reindeer husbandry and may only be carried out when areas possibly containing reindeer have been cleared; and the permit holder must agree locally about the means by which the harmful movement of reindeer from one area to another can be prevented. The State party submits that consensus was reached among the participants in the consultation event on 17 May 2016, when it was concluded that the best way to prevent the dispersal of reindeer was to control their movement with correctly placed barriers, namely, tarpaulins. 6.4 With regard to the authors’ allegation relating to discrimination, the State party reiterates that the exploration permit holder must pay annual compensation to the owners of the land (the State) and claims that determining the owner is ultimately a private law issue. 6.5 The State party further submits that the case law on the interpretation of article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the Human Rights Committee, read in the light of the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination, must be taken into account in applying article 30 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to transfer culture and language to the next generations, as a precondition for the maintenance and development of culture. However, and while recognizing that traditional reindeer herding constitutes the foundation of Sami cultural life, the State party reiterates that transferring Sami culture to Sami children is becoming increasingly difficult because 70 per cent of Sami children live outside the Sami homeland. 6.6 The State party notes that, while considerable harm caused by activities in the reindeer herding area may undermine the ability of the Sami to use their language and practise their culture and traditional livelihoods, there is no breach of the Convention because it cannot be concluded that it has failed to consult the authors and to acquire their free, prior and informed consent. An extensive hearing process was conducted before the granting of the permit, and the exploration permit contains several conditions aimed at mitigating the possible harm caused to reindeer herding in the area. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 7.1 On 9 January 2023, the authors acknowledged and endorsed the State party’s interpretation of article 30 of the Convention, mentioning that it is precisely what makes their communication a distinct case about their rights, as children, not to be denied the right to be active and willing recipients of the Sami reindeer herder culture and way of life. 7.2 The authors submit that the State party is misleading when it claims that the mineral exploration would be a temporary event. Exploration works are likely to disturb the reindeer to a degree that may disrupt the whole annual cycle of nature-based herding, which takes place at different locations that are affected by regular seasonal factors, increasing year-to-year variations related to climate change, and rapidly changing weather conditions. 7.3 Regarding the discrimination claim, the authors note that, in Ågren et al. v. Sweden,14 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination dismissed the State party’s argument that the Sami had been treated on an equal footing, as there was a need to apply different rules to protect the specific rights of the Sami. These rules have been judicially recognized in Finland, as evidenced by two recent Supreme Court rulings in which Sami defendants were acquitted of criminal charges concerning unlawful fishing, because the uniform application of the total ban on salmon fishing was held to be unconstitutional. 15 7.4 The authors further submit that the State party “confuses” the Committee with regard to the consent that they allegedly expressed during the consultation event held on 17 May 2016. No consensus was reached among the participants, as observed by the Supreme Administrative Court and as demonstrated by the minutes of the meeting. The authors disagree with the State party’s assertion that the consultation process was “extensive”. 14 15 Paras. 6.7, 6.12 and 6.23. Decisions KKO:2022:25 and KKO:2022:26. 9