CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

GE.25-13456 (E) 091025 091025

Human Rights Committee

Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol, concerning communication No. 3696/2020*, **

Communication submitted by:

A.P., T.K., A.M., J.A. and T.V. (represented by

counsel, Juha Joona)

Alleged victims:

The authors

State Party:

Finland

Date of communication:

28 July 2019 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 7 January 2020 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

17 July 2025

Subject matter:

Right to vote in elections to the Sami Parliament

Procedural issues:

Victim status; exhaustion of domestic remedies;

level of substantiation of claims; abuse of the

right of submission

Substantive issues:

Right to self-determination; non-discrimination;

political rights; minority rights

Articles of the Covenant:

1, 25, 26 and 27

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

1, 2, 3 and 5 (2) (b)

1.1

The authors of the communication are A.P., T.K., A.M., J.A. and T.V., nationals of

Finland born in 1996, 1990, 1957, 1981 and 1945, respectively. They claim that, by rejecting

their applications for inclusion in the electoral roll of the Sami Parliament, the State Party

violated their rights under articles 1, 25, 26 and 27 of Covenant. The Optional Protocol

entered into force for the State Party on 23 March 1976. The authors are represented by

counsel.

1.2

On 27 April 2020, pursuant to rule 93 (1) of its rules of procedure, the Committee,

acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures, denied

the State Party’s request that the admissibility of the communication be examined separately

from the merits.

* Adopted by the Committee at its 144th session (23 June–17 July 2025).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Carlos Ramón Fernández

Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia Leinarte, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada

Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh Changrok, Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru

Tamerat Yigezu.

United Nations

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

10 October 2025

Original: English

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

2

GE.25-13456

Facts as submitted by the authors

2.1

The authors state that they identify as Sami, having descended from the original Sami

population who lived in northern Finland. The authors all live in Lapland, in northern Finland,

and engage in traditional Sami livelihoods, such as hunting, fishing, reindeer husbandry,

foraging and making traditional Sami handicrafts.

2.2

Under section 17 (3) of the Constitution of the State Party, the Sami are recognized as

an Indigenous People. Persons who consider themselves Sami and who meet at least one of

the three criteria listed in section 3 of the Act on the Sami Parliament can apply to be entered

in the electoral roll of the Sami Parliament. Under the State Party’s legislation, only persons

listed in the electoral roll are considered to be Sami, and only they have the right to vote in

Sami Parliament elections. Applications to be included in the electoral roll are processed, in

the first instance, by the Sami Parliament Election Committee. Decisions by the Sami

Parliament Election Committee can be appealed to the Sami Parliament Board and, in the

final instance, the Supreme Administrative Court.

2.3

In 2015, the authors applied for inclusion in the electoral roll of the Sami Parliament.

The Sami Parliament Election Committee and the Sami Parliament Board rejected the authors’

applications. The authors were subsequently among 182 individuals who filed appeals to the

Supreme Administrative Court, contesting the rejection of their applications. In decisions

issued on 30 September 2015, the Court granted the appeals of 93 individuals and ordered

their inclusion in the electoral roll. However, the Court rejected the remaining 89 appeals,

including those filed by the authors. As a result, the authors were unable to vote in the Sami

Parliament elections. The authors claim that their applications were rejected on the basis of

an “overall consideration” of their case, despite them meeting the criteria for eligibility under

section 3 (2) of the Act on the Sami Parliament. They argue that the Court based its decision

on the ground that their ancestors were recorded in registers that were insufficiently recent,

as they dated back to the eighteenth century. They note that, in practice, almost every one of

those listed in the 2015 electoral roll had been enrolled under section 3 (1) or (3) of the Act

on the Sami Parliament, while applications under section 3 (2) had been rejected. In this

connection, the authors note that inclusion in the electoral roll under section 3 (1) of the Act

was based on an interview survey conducted in 1962, which, they argue, was conducted in

an inadequate manner. The authors further contend that many of the people included in the

current Sami electoral roll do not live in the northern parts of Finland and do not practise a

traditional Sami lifestyle. They state that about 70 per cent of the electoral roll is made up of

persons living in the south of Finland and that only 2 to 3 per cent of those listed in the

electoral roll derive their livelihood from reindeer husbandry.

2.4

The authors refer to the Committee’s Views in Sanila-Aikio v. Finland and

Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland. 1 They argue that the Committee’s findings in those

communications are problematic because the 97 individuals whose inclusion in the electoral

roll was the subject matter of the communications were neither consulted nor given the

opportunity to set forth arguments that may have had an impact on the outcome of the

Committee’s consideration of the communications. The authors argue that these individuals

met the criteria to qualify as an Indigenous person under article 1 of the International Labour

Organization (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and the State

Party’s legislation, while those who advocated for their removal from the electoral roll did

not themselves necessarily meet those criteria. The authors further argue that Sami

Parliament members who decide whether to accept or reject applications to be included in

the electoral roll are not impartial, as it is in their interest that the electoral roll does not

include persons who are likely to vote for competing candidates or opinions.

Complaint

3.

The authors claim that, by rejecting their applications for inclusion in the electoral roll

of the Sami Parliament, the State Party violated their rights under articles 1, 25, 26 and 27 of

the Covenant. They argue that the decisions adopted in 2015 by the Supreme Administrative

Court, which rejected their applications, contradict the provisions of domestic legislation and

1 CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015; and CCPR/C/124/D/2950/2017 and CCPR/C/124/D/2950/2017/Corr.1.

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

GE.25-13456

3

the Covenant, as, they argue, they met the criteria under the Act on the Sami Parliament for

inclusion in the electoral roll.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

On 9 March 2020, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility of

the communication. It submits that the authors’ claims should be found to be inadmissible

for lack of victim status, as an abuse of the right of submission and as being insufficiently

substantiated for the purpose of admissibility.

4.2

The State Party submits that, in accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the

authors’ claims under article 1 of the Covenant should be found inadmissible under article 1

of the Optional Protocol.2

4.3

The State Party provides information on further developments relating to the authors’

complaint. It notes that, under section 19 of the Act on the Sami Parliament, elections are

held every four years. The time limit for requesting inclusion in the electoral roll for the 2019

election expired on 31 December 2018. Two of the authors, T.K. and T.V., requested

inclusion within the deadline. The requests were rejected by the Sami Parliament Election

Committee on 15 February and 7 June 2019, respectively, and upheld by the Sami Parliament

Board on 27 August 2019, with appeals pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at

the time of the State Party’s submission of its observations.

4.4

The State Party notes that the final domestic decisions on the authors’ applications to

be included in the Sami Parliament electoral roll were rendered on 30 September 2015. It

notes, however, that the authors did not submit their complaint before the Committee until

28 July 2019, that is, almost four years after the domestic decisions, and with no explanation

provided as to why they had decided to wait so long before doing so. The State Party states

that it leaves it for the Committee to consider whether, in the particular circumstances of the

present communication, the unexplained delay in submitting the communication could be

considered to constitute an abuse of the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional

Protocol.

4.5

The State Party further submits that the authors’ claims should be found inadmissible

for lack of substantiation. It argues that the authors have failed to specify in what way their

individual rights under the articles invoked have been violated. It observes that the core of

the communication appears to be the authors’ dissatisfaction with the outcome of the

domestic proceedings relating to their applications for inclusion in the 2015 Sami Parliament

electoral roll. It emphasizes that it is not the Committee’s role to act as a fourth instance to

domestic courts.

4.6

On 27 October 2020, the State Party submitted its observations on the merits of

communication. It notes that, at the time of the submission of its observations, T.K.’s and

T.V.’s applications for inclusion in the 2019 electoral roll were still pending before the

Supreme Administrative Court, and it argues that the remaining three authors could likewise

have submitted applications for inclusion in the 2019 electoral roll. It submits that the

complaint should therefore be found inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional

Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

4.7

The State Party provides information on domestic legislation. It notes that, under

article 17 of the Constitution, the Sami as an Indigenous People have the right to maintain

and develop their own language and culture. The Act on the Sami Parliament3 contains

2 The State Party refers to Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland, para. 8.6.

3 In its additional observations of 2 July 2021 and further information submitted on 21 February 2024,

the State Party noted that reforms of the Act on the Sami Parliament, especially section 3 thereof,

were ongoing and would take into account international treaties, with the participation and influence

of the Sami Parliament. It noted that, in December 2023, the Government had submitted a proposal

for amendments to the Act. As one of the key amendments, the requirements for inclusion in the

electoral roll were to be revised, and the roll was to determine only the right to vote and stand as a

candidate in the Sami Parliament; it was not to determine the question of who could be considered a

Sami. Section 3 (2) of the Act was to be removed. In that connection, the State Party noted that

section 3 (2) of the Act could be considered problematic, especially insofar as it concerned the right to

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

4

GE.25-13456

detailed provisions on the linguistic and cultural autonomy of the Sami. According to

section 1 of the Act as in force at the time of the State Party’s submission, the Sami elect

among themselves a Sami Parliament for tasks relating to self-government in matters

concerning culture. The right to vote in the Sami Parliament elections and other electoral

rights, such as the right to stand as a candidate in these elections, are linked to the definition

of a Sami.4 Section 3 of the Act contains a definition of who is a Sami, which includes both

subjective and objective criteria. For the purpose of the Act, a Sami means a person who

considers himself or herself a Sami, provided that: (a) he or she or at least one of his or her

parents or grandparents learned Sami as a first language; (b) he or she is a descendant of a

person who was entered in a land, taxation or population register as a mountain, forest or

fishing Lapp; or (c) at least one of his or her parents was or could have been registered as an

elector for an election to the Sami Delegation or the Sami Parliament. With regard to

section 3 (2) of the Act, the Government proposed that the registers of 1875 should be the

oldest official registers to be taken into account and that more detailed provisions should be

laid down by decree. The reasoning was that going further back in time might make it

unreasonably difficult to provide evidence and might render the applicant’s connection with

the Sami questionable. However, the Constitutional Law Committee considered that the

matter could not be regulated by decree, and no time limit was prescribed in the Act.

4.8

The State Party provides information on the case law of the Supreme Administrative

Court concerning Sami Parliament elections. It notes that the Sami Parliament Election

Committee prepared an electoral roll for the first time for the election in 1999, on the basis

of the electoral roll for the elections to the Sami Delegation. The decision to prepare an

electoral roll on that basis was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court by a total of

656 persons. The Court admitted seven appeals and ordered the inclusion of four of the

persons who had appealed in the electoral roll. In a case decided in 2011, the Court held that,

although the complainant self-identified as Sami, had submitted a certificate from an archival

authority attesting to descendance from a person entered as a mountain Lapp in the 1825 land

and taxation registers, and had presented evidence of a grandparent having learned Sami, the

complainant was not a Sami under section 3 of the Act on the Sami Parliament on the basis

of those grounds alone.5 However, taking into account the “overall consideration” of the

situation of the person, who lived in Inari, Lapland, with a Sami identity and a Sami way of

life, the person was considered a Sami and included in the electoral roll. On the basis of this

“overall consideration”, four applicants were accepted for inclusion in the 2011 electoral roll

by the Court. In the decision, the Court held that no grounds existed for interpreting

section 3 (2) of the Act as allowing only register entries from 1875 or subsequent years. The

Court held that, instead, the interpretation of section 3 of the Act must be based on an

assessment of whether the person considered himself or herself to be a Sami and whether the

self-identification was based on objective criteria. The Court held that even old register

entries may have relevance to self-identification and an “overall consideration”, although

entries concerning a person’s ancestors dating further back than 1875 did not automatically

be entered into the electoral roll as a descendant of a person who had been entered into a land,

taxation or population register as a mountain, forest or fishing Lapp. It noted that, in old documents,

the expression “Lapp” had referred to livelihood, that is, to payers of Lapp tax, and not to ethnicity.

Those documents also included entries on people other than the Sami who had in the past lived in the

present Sami homeland. The State Party noted, therefore, that an entry in the register did not as such

prove that the person concerned had been a Sami. The State Party further reported that the proposed

amendments included the establishment of an autonomous and independent board of review that

would be the review body of first instance in matters concerning the electoral roll, instead of the Sami

Parliament Board.

4 The State Party referred to sections 21, 23 and 23 a of the Act on the Sami Parliament. Section 21 of

the text in force at the time of the State Party’s submission provided that, in elections to the Sami

Parliament, every Sami who had reached the age of 18 years by the last day of the election had the

right to vote, regardless of place of residence, provided that he or she was a Finnish citizen or a

foreign citizen domiciled in Finland on the last date on which a request for inclusion in the electoral

roll could have been made. Section 23 (1) provided that the Sami Parliament Election Committee was

to draw up an electoral roll of persons with the right to vote, based on the previous electoral roll and

information from the Population Information System. Section 23 a (1) provided that a Sami with the

right to vote who had not been entered into the electoral roll was to be entered into it upon request.

5 KHO 2011:81.

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

GE.25-13456

5

fulfil the requirements that the person was Sami within the meaning of the Act. The

interpretation of “overall consideration” made by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2011

extended the definition of a Sami to some extent and, in 2015, the Court accepted the

inclusion of 93 applicants in the electoral roll. Inclusion was based on the new interpretation

in 53 of those cases.

4.9

The State Party provides information on the authors’ applications for inclusion in the

2015 Sami Parliament electoral roll. It notes that four of the authors invoked section 3 (1) of

the Act on the Sami Parliament, each submitting that a grandparent had knowledge of the

Sami language. However, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the evidence

presented by the authors in this regard did not suffice to meet the criteria under section 3 (1)

of the Act. All five authors also invoked section 3 (2) of the Act, presenting certificates from

archival authorities in which reference was made to land registers from 1739, 1762 or 1862

and in which it was stated that the authors were descendants of persons entered in a land,

taxation or population register as a mountain, forest or fishing Lapp. The Court, however,

found that the authors could be considered Sami neither within the meaning of section 3 (2)

of the Act on that ground alone nor within the meaning of section 3 on the basis of an overall

consideration.

4.10

The State Party notes that the authors question the composition of the Sami Parliament

electoral roll. In this connection, it notes that the Sami traditionally lived in an area, Sapmi,

that now falls within the territories of Finland, Norway, the Russian Federation and Sweden.

Closures of, and changes to, State borders, as well as regulations by States of, for instance,

livelihoods, have affected Sami communities in a significant manner and have also led to

migration between the territories of States. History and its consequences have been complex.

The autonomy of the Sami concerns their own language and culture. The scope of legislation

on the Sami as an Indigenous People is not limited to Sami persons with ancestry in Finland,

and such delimitation cannot be considered justified in the light of history. The Act on the

Sami Parliament, in Finland, and the corresponding legislation in Norway and Sweden

establish an ancestral connection with the Sami language as the main objective criterion for

considering a person Sami. The choice of the language criterion is justified by the content

and purpose of Sami autonomy. While traditional livelihoods are particularly important for

maintaining Sami language and culture, electoral rights are not connected with particular

trades or livelihoods or geographical residence.

Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

5.1

On 13 April 2020, the authors submitted their comments on the State Party’s

observations on admissibility. They maintain that the communication is admissible and

submit that, by appealing the rejection of their applications to be included in the 2015

electoral roll to the Supreme Administrative Court, they have exhausted all available

domestic remedies.

5.2

The authors note the State Party’s submission that their communication was submitted

with an extensive delay following the domestic decisions. They argue that they were unaware

of the possibility of submitting a complaint to the Committee at the time when the domestic

decisions were rendered in their cases. In addition, they note that the Committee’s Views in

Sanila-Aikio v. Finland and Näkkäläjärvi v. Finland were made public in 2019, and it was

only at that point that it became clear to them that those communications were also partially

relevant to their rights and legal status, which led them to bring their complaint before the

Committee.

5.3

The authors contend that they have substantiated their claims for the purpose of

admissibility. They note that only persons entered in the Sami Parliament electoral roll are

considered to be Sami. As the authors are not included in the electoral roll, they are not

considered to be Sami. They cannot influence decision-making in the Sami Parliament or

participate in Sami culture. They note that all funds used to support Sami culture in the State

Party are paid to the Sami Parliament. In turn, the Sami Parliament provides funding only for

the projects of persons listed in the Sami Parliament electoral roll. The authors note, in

addition, that their families have worn the traditional Sami clothing, gákti, for generations.

However, due to them not being included in the Sami Parliament electoral roll, their right to

wear traditional Sami clothing is being questioned.

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

6

GE.25-13456

5.4

On 2 March 2021, the authors submitted their comments on the State Party’s

observations on the merits. They reiterate their claim that, by not including them in the

electoral roll, the State Party violated their rights under articles 1, 25, 26 and 27 of the

Covenant.

State Party’s additional observations

6.

On 2 July 2021, the State Party submitted additional observations on the

communication. It reports that, on 23 April 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled

on the pending applications by authors T.K. and T.V. for inclusion in the 2019 electoral roll.

It notes that one of the authors submitted that his grandfather had learned Sami as a first

language. The Court, however, held that the evidence provided was inconsistent and that the

author in question was not to be considered a Sami under section 3 (1) of the Act on the Sami

Parliament. He also presented a certificate from archival authorities stating that he was a

descendant of a person entered as a Lapp in the 1739 land register. The Court held that he

could not be considered a Sami under section 3 (2) of the Act either, taking into account that

the entry in the land register dated back to the distant past. Another of the authors submitted

that his grandmother had learned Sami as one of her two first languages. The author in

question did not, however, present evidence that would justify considering him a Sami under

section 3 (1) of the Act on the Sami Parliament. He also presented a certificate from archival

authorities stating that he was a descendant of a person entered as a Lapp in the 1825 land

register. The Court again held that the entry was too old to fulfil the requirements of

section 3 (2) of the Act. The State Party states that, in the reasoning for its decisions of 2019,

the Court discussed the development of international law and limited its assessment more

strictly than before to the fulfilment of the objective criteria laid down in law.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

7.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is

admissible under the Optional Protocol.

7.2

The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional

Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international

investigation or settlement.

7.3

The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the communication should be

found inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as, at the time of the submission

of the complaint, two of the authors had pending appeals on their applications for inclusion

in the 2019 electoral roll before the Supreme Administrative Court, and the remaining three

authors could also have submitted such applications. The Committee, however, notes that all

five authors submitted applications for inclusion in the Sami Parliament electoral roll of 2015

and appealed the rejection of their applications to the Supreme Administrative Court, which

dismissed their appeals by final decision on 30 September 2015. The Committee therefore

considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering

the present complaint.

7.4

The Committee further notes the State Party’s submission that the communication

may constitute an abuse of the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol,

as it was submitted almost four years after the final domestic decisions had been rendered

concerning the authors’ applications to be included in the 2015 Sami Parliament electoral

roll. The Committee recalls that, according to rule 99 (c) of its rules of procedure, a

communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission when it is submitted five

years after the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author of the communication, or,

where applicable, three years from the conclusion of another procedure of international

investigation or settlement, unless there are reasons justifying the delay, taking into account

all the circumstances of the communication. In the present case, the Committee notes that the

authors submitted the communication on 28 July 2019, that is, three years and 10 months

after the exhaustion of domestic remedies on 30 September 2015. Consequently, the

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

GE.25-13456

7

Committee finds that it is not precluded by article 3 of the Optional Protocol from considering

the present communication.

7.5

Regarding the authors’ claim under article 1 of the Covenant, the Committee recalls

its jurisprudence that an author, as an individual, cannot claim under the Optional Protocol

to be a victim of a violation of the right of self-determination enshrined in article 1 of the

Covenant, which deals with rights conferred to peoples as such.6 Accordingly, the Committee

considers that the authors’ claim regarding violations of article 1 of the Covenant is

inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee, however, recalls that,

although it does not have the competence under the Optional Protocol to consider a

communication alleging a violation of the right of self-determination protected under

article 1 of the Covenant, it may interpret article 1, when this is relevant, in determining

whether rights protected in parts II and III of the Covenant have been violated.7

7.6

The Committee notes the authors’ claim that, by rejecting their applications for

inclusion in the electoral roll of the Sami Parliament in 2015, the State Party violated their

rights under articles 25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant. It notes the State Party’s submission that

the authors’ claims should be found inadmissible for lack of substantiation, as the authors

have failed to specify in what way their individual rights under the articles invoked have been

violated, and its argument that the complaint appears merely to express the authors’

dissatisfaction with the outcome of the domestic proceedings. The Committee recalls its

jurisprudence in which it has repeatedly held that it is incumbent on the courts of States

Parties to evaluate the facts and evidence in each specific case, as well as the application of

domestic legislation, unless it can be ascertained that such evaluation or application was

clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.8

7.7

The Committee recalls that the protection of the rights enshrined in article 27 is

directed towards ensuring the survival and continued development of the cultural identity of

the minority concerned, thus enriching the fabric of society as a whole.9 The Committee, in

addition, recalls that article 27 of the Covenant, interpreted in the light of the United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and article 1 of the Covenant, enshrines an

inalienable right of Indigenous Peoples to freely determine their political status and freely

pursue their economic, social and cultural development.10 Article 1 of the Covenant and the

corresponding obligations concerning its implementation are thus interrelated with other

provisions of the Covenant and rules of international law.11 In the context of Indigenous

Peoples’ rights, articles 25 and 27 of the Covenant have a collective dimension, and some of

those rights can be enjoyed only in community with others.12

7.8

The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that the category of persons belonging

to an Indigenous People may thus in some instances need to be defined to protect the viability

and welfare of a minority as a whole.13 It observes that, under article 33 of the United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Peoples have the right to

determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions,

and the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in

accordance with their own procedures. Article 9 of the Declaration provides that Indigenous

6 Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada (CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984), para. 13.3.

7 Gillot et al. v. France (CCPR/C/75/D/932/2000), para. 13.4; Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand

(CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993), para. 9.2; Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland, para 8.6; and Roy et al. v.

Australia (CCPR/C/137/D/3585/2019), para. 7.3.

8 For example, Manzano et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/98/D/1616/2007), para. 6.4; L.D.L.P. v. Spain

(CCPR/C/102/D/1622/2007), para. 6.3; and B and C v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/113/D/1967/2010

and CCPR/C/113/D/1967/2010/Corr.1), para. 6.5.

9 General comment No. 23 (1994), paras. 6.1 and 9; Poma Poma v. Peru (CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006),

para. 7.2; and Roy et al. v. Australia, paras. 8.2 and 8.3.

10 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 3. See also art. 4 of the

Declaration. See further general comment No. 12 (1984), para. 2; Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, para. 6.8;

and Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland, para. 9.8.

11 General comment No. 12 (1984), para. 2; Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, para. 6.8; and Näkkäläjärvi et al. v.

Finland, para. 9.8.

12 Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, para. 6.9; and Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland, para. 9.9.

13 Lovelace v. Canada, Views, communication No. 24/1977, para. 15.

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

8

GE.25-13456

Peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an Indigenous community or nation, in

accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned, and that

no discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right. In accordance with

article 8 (1) of the Declaration, Indigenous Peoples and individuals have the right not to be

subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. As a consequence, States must

provide effective mechanisms for the prevention of, and redress for, any action that has the

aim or effect of depriving Indigenous communities of their integrity as distinct peoples or of

their cultural values or ethnic identities. 14 In this connection, the Committee notes the

jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, according to which the

identification of an Indigenous community, from its name to its membership, is a social and

historical fact that is part of its autonomy, and therefore States must restrict themselves to

respecting the corresponding decision made by the community, that is, the way in which it

identifies itself.15 The Committee thus observes that, when adjudicating on the rights of

Indigenous Peoples and, in particular, on the criteria for membership, as well as on the

membership of individual persons, domestic courts must pay due regard to the right to

self-determination of Indigenous communities, in particular when courts deviate from

generally established criteria for membership and from the assessment of representative

bodies of the community in this regard.16

7.9

The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence in Sanila-Aikio v. Finland and

Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland. These communications concerned the inclusion by the

Supreme Administrative Court of 97 applicants in the 2011 and 2015 electoral rolls of the

Sami Parliament; their applications had been rejected by the Sami Parliament Election

Committee and the Sami Parliament Board. The present case thus concerns the same subject

matter as those communications, the difference being that, in the present case, the authors’

applications for inclusion in the electoral roll were rejected by both the Sami Parliament

Election Committee and the Sami Parliament Board, as well as by the Supreme

Administrative Court, for not meeting the criteria for enrolment under the Act on the Sami

Parliament.

7.10

The Committee recalls that, in its Views in Sanila-Aikio v. Finland and Näkkäläjärvi

et al. v. Finland, it found that the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court from 2011

onward had departed from the previous interpretation of section 3 of the Act on the Sami

Parliament as shared by the Supreme Administrative Court and the Sami Parliament

representative bodies, thus infringing the capacity of the Sami people to exercise, through the

Sami Parliament, a key dimension of Sami self-determination in determining who is a

member of their community. The Committee found that the facts of these complaints thus

amounted to a violation of article 25, read alone and in conjunction with article 27, of the

Covenant, as interpreted in the light of article 1 of the Covenant.17

7.11

The Committee, however, observes that, in the present case, the authors’ applications

for inclusion in the Sami Parliament electoral roll were rejected by the Sami Parliament

Election Committee and the Sami Parliament Board. These decisions were upheld on appeal

by the Supreme Administrative Court. While the Committee notes that the authors disagree

with the outcome of the domestic proceedings, it finds that they have failed to substantiate

that the domestic authorities’ application and interpretation of domestic law in their cases

was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. In this consideration,

the Committee takes note especially of the fact that the authors’ applications were rejected

by the Sami Parliament Election Committee and the Sami Parliament Board, in their function

of exercising internal self-determination, that is, determining membership of the Sami

community in accordance with its customs and traditions. The Committee thus finds the

14 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Matson et al. v. Canada

(CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014), para 18.4.

15 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay,

Judgment, 24 August 2010, para. 37. See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Saramaka

People v. Suriname, Judgment, 28 November 2007, para. 164; and Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women, Matson et al. v. Canada, para. 18.4.

16 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Nuorgam et al. v. Finland

(CERD/C/106/D/59/2016), para. 9.12.

17 Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, para. 6.11; and Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland, para. 9.11.

CCPR/C/144/D/3696/2020

GE.25-13456

9

authors’ claims under articles 25 and 27 of the Covenant to be insufficiently substantiated for

the purposes of admissibility and thus inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee further notes that the authors have also invoked claims under article 26 of

the Covenant, but it finds that they have not provided any information or argumentation as to

how they consider that their rights under that article have been violated. The Committee

therefore finds the authors’ claims under article 26 to be insufficiently substantiated and

inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

8.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional

Protocol;

(b)

That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State Party and to the

authors.