CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, Lansman (Ilmari) et al. v. Finland

Decision on merits; Substantive issues: minorities minorities, right to enjoy own culture; Articles: 27; Procedural issues: exhaustion of domestic remedies interim measures; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]

Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)

NTS CCPR

(\, International Covenant .

WW yy on Civil and Political Rights RESTRICTED */

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992

8 November 1994

Original : ENGLISH

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Fifty-second session

VIEWS

Communication No. 511/1992

Submitted by: Ilmari Lansman et al.

{represented by counsel]

Victims: The authors

State party: Finland

Date of communication: 11 June 1992 (initial submission)

Documentation references: Prior decisions ~ Special Rapporteur's rule 91

decision, transmitted to the

State party on 25 August 1992

(not issued in document form)

- CCPR/C/49/D/511/1992

(Decision on admissibility,

dated 14 October 1993)

Date of adoption of Views: 26 October 1994

On 26 October 1994, the Human Rights Committee adopted its Views under

article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights, in respect of communication No. 511/1992. The

text of the Views is appended to the present document.

[ANNEX]

* Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee.

VWS511.52e cb

GE.94-7047) _

CCPP/C/52/D/511/1992

Annex

English

Page 1

ANNEX

VIEWS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 4,

OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT

ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

- FIFTY-SECOND SESSION -

concerning

Communication No. 511/1992

Submitted by: Ilmari Lansman et al.

{represented by counsel]

Victims: The authors

State party: Finland

Date of communication: 11 June 1992 (initial submission)

Date of decision on admissibility: 14 October 1993

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 26 October 1994,

Havin concluded its consideration of communication No. 511/1992

submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Ilmari Lansman et al. under the

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Having taken into account all written information made available to it

by the authors of the communication, their counsel and the State party,

Adopts its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1932

Annex

English

Page 10

may come within the ambit of article 27, if they are an essential element of

the culture of an ethnic community’.

9.3 The right to enjoy one's culture cannot be determined in abstracto but

has to be placed in context. In this connection, the Committee observes that

article 27 does not only protect traditional means of livelihood of national

minorities, as indicated in the State party's submission. Therefore, that the

authors may have adapted their methods of reindeer herding over the years and

practice it with the help of modern technology does not prevent them from

invoking article 27 of the Covenant. Furthermore, mountain Riutusvaara

continues to have a spiritual significance relevant to their culture. The

Committee also notes the concern of the authors that the quality of

slaughtered reindeer could be adversely affected by a disturbed environment.

9.4 A State may understandably wish to encourage development or allow

economic activity by enterprises. The scope of its freedom to do so is not to

be assessed by reference to a margin of appreciation, but by reference to the

obligations it has undertaken in article 27. Article 27 requires that a member

of a minority shall not be denied his right to enjoy his culture. Thus,

measures whose impact amount to a denial of the right will not be compatible

with the obligations under article 27. However, measures that have a certain

limited impact on the way of life of persons belonging to a minority will not

necessarily amount to a denial of the right under article 27.

9.5 The question that therefore arises in this case is whether the impact

of the quarrying on Mount Riutusvaara is so substantial that it does

effectively deny ta the authors the right to enjoy their cultural rights in

that region. The Committee recalls paragraph 7 of its General Comment on

article 27, according to which minorities or indigenous groups have a right

to the protection of traditional activities such as hunting, fishing or, as

in the instant case, reindeer husbandry, and that measures must be taken "to

ensure the effective participation of members of minority communities in

decisions which affect them".

9.6 Against this background, the Committee concludes that quarrying on the

slopes of Mt. Riutusvaara, in the amount that has already taken place, does

not constitute a denial of the authors’ right, under article 27, to enjoy

their own culture. It notes in particular that the interests of the

Muotkatunturi Herdsmens' Committee and of the authors were considered during

the proceedings leading to the delivery of the quarrying permit, that the

authors were consulted during the proceedings, and that reindeer herding in

the area does not appear to have been adversely affected by such quarrying as

has occurred.

9.7 As far as future activities which may be approved by the authorities are

concerned, the Committee further notes that the information available to it

indicates that the State party's authorities have endeavoured to permit only

quarrying which would minimize the impact on any reindeer herding activity in

Southern Riutusvaara and on the environment; the intention to minimize the

effects of extraction of stone from the area on reindeer husbandry is

reflected in the conditions laid down in the quarrying permit. Moreover, it

has been agreed that such activities should be carried out primarily outside

the period used for reindeer pasturing in the area. Nothing indicates that the

change in herding methods by the Muotkatunturi Herdsmens' Committee (see

paragraph 8.1 above) could not be accommodated by the local forestry

authorities and/or the company.

5 Views on communication No. 197/1985 (Kitok v. Sweden), adopted on

27 July 1988, paragraph 9.2.

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992

Annex

English

Page 3

Board as well as to the Supreme Administrative Court‘, where they specifically

invoked article 27 of the Covenant. On 16 April 1992, the Supreme

Administrative Court dismissed the appeal without addressing the alleged

violations of the Covenant. According to the authors, no further domestic

remedies are available.

2.8 Finally, at the time of submission of the communication in June 1992,

the authors, fearing that further quarrying is imminent, requested the

adoption of interim measures of protection, under rule 86 of the Committee's

rules of procedure, so as to avoid irreparable damage.

The complaint:

3.1 The authors affirm that the quarrying of stone on the flank of the

Etela-Riutusvaara mountain and its transportation through their reindeer

herding territory would violate their rights under article 27 of the Covenant,

in particular their right to enjoy their own culture, which has traditionally

been and remains essentially based on reindeer husbandry.

3.2 In support of their contention of a violation of article 27, the authors

refer to the Views adopted by the Committee in the cases of Ivan Kitok (No.

197/1985) and B. Ominayak and members of the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada (No.

167/1964), as weil as to ILO Convention No.169 concerning the rights of

indigenous and tribal people in independent countries.

The State party's information and observations and counsel's comments thereon:

4.1 The State party confirms that quarrying of stone in the area claimed by

the authors was made possible by a permit granted by the Angeli Municipal

Board on 8 January 1990. Pursuant to Act No. 555/1981 on extractable land

resources, this permit was at the basis of a contract passed between the

Central Forestry Board and a private company, which is valid until

31 December 1993.

4.2 The State party opines that those communicants to the Committee who, in

the matter under consideration, have applied both to the Lapland Provincial

Administrative Board and to the Supreme Administrative Court have exhausted

all available domestic remedies. As the number of individuals who appealed to

the Supreme Administrative Court is however lower than the number of those who

filed a complaint with the Committee, the State party considers the

communication inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic

remedies in respect of those authors who were not a party to the case before

the Supreme Administrative Court.

4.3 The State party concedes that "extraordinary appeals" against the

decision of the Supreme Administrative Court would have no prospect of

success, and that there are no other impediments, on procedural grounds, to

the admissibility of the communication. On the other hand, it submits that the

authors' request for the adoption of interim measures of protection was

“clearly premature", as only test quarrying on the contested site has been

carried out.

5.1 In his comments, counsel rejects the State party's argument that those

authors who did not personally sign the appeal to the Supreme Administrative

Court failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. He argues that "[a]J1l the

signatories of domestic appeals and the communication have invoked the same

x It should be noted that not all of the authors of the

communication before the Committee appealed to the Supreme Court.

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1932

Annex

English

Page 4

grounds, both on the domestic level and before the Human Rights Committee. The

number and identity of signatories was of no relevance for the outcome of the

Supreme Court judgment, since the legal matter was the same for all the

signatories of the communication...".

5.2 Counsel contends that in the light of the Committee's jurisprudence in

the case of Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, all the authors should be deemed to

have complied with the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the

Optional Protocol. In this case, he recalls, the Committee decided that the

Protocol does not impose on authors the obligation to seize the domestic

courts if the highest domestic court has already substantially decided the

question at issue. He affirms that in the case of Mr. Lansman and his co-

authors, the Supreme Administrative Court has already decided the matter in

respect of all the authors.

5.3 In further comments dated 16 August 1993, counsel notes that the lease

contract for Arktinen Kivi Oy expires at the end of 1993, and that

negotiations for a longer lease are underway. If agreement on a long-term

lease is reached, Arktinen intends to undertake considerable investments,

inter alia for road construction. Counsel further notes that even the limited

test quarrying carried out so far has left considerable marks on Mount Etela-

Riutusvaara. Similarly, the marks and scars left by the provisional road

allegedly will remain in the landscape for hundreds of years, because of

extreme climatic conditions. Hence, the consequences for reindeer herding are

greater and will last longer than the total amount of stone to be taken from

the quarry (5,000 cubic metres) would suggest. Finally, counsel reiterates

that the location of the quarry and the road leading to it are of crucial

importance for the activities of the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's Committee,

because their new slaughterhouse and the area used for rounding up reindeers

are situated in the immediate vicinity.

The Committee's admissibility decision:

6.1 During its 49th session, the Committee considered the admissibility of

the communication. It noted that the State party did not object to the

admissibility of the complaint in respect of -all those authors which had

appealed the quarrying permit both to the Lapland Provincial Administrative

Board and to the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, and that only in

respect of those authors who had not personally appealed to the Supreme

Administrative Court did it contend that domestic remedies had not been

exhausted.

6.2 The Committee disagreed with the State party's reasoning and recalled

that the facts at the basis of the decision of the Supreme Administrative

Court of 16 April’'1992 and of the case before the Committee were identical;

had those who did not personally sign the appeal to the Supreme Administrative

Court done so, their appeal would have been dismissed along with that of the

other appellants. It was unreasonable to expect that if they applied to the

Supreme Administrative Court now, on the same facts and with the same legal

arguments, this court would hand down another decision. The Committee

reiterated its earlier jurisprudence that wherever the jurisprudence of the

highest domestic tribunal has decided the matter at issue, thereby eliminating

any prospect of success of an appeal to the domestic courts, authors are not

required to exhaust domestic remedies, for the purposes of the Optional

Protocol. The Committee therefore concluded that the requirements of article

5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol had been met.

6.3 The Committee considered that the authors’ claims pertaining to article

27 had been substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and that they should

be considered on their merits. As to the authors' request for interim measures

of protection, it noted that the application of rule 86 of the rules of

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1592

Annex

Engiish

Page §

procedure would be premature but that the authors retained the right to

address another request under rule 86 to the Committee if there were

reasonably justified concerns that quarrying might resume.

6.4 On 14 October 1993, therefore, the Committee declared the communication

admissibie in so far as it appeared to raise issues under article 27 of the

Covenant.

State party's submission on the merits and counsel's comments therecn:

7.1 In its submission under article 4, paragraph 2, dated 26 July 1994, the

State party supplements and corrects the facts of the case. Concerning the

issue of ownership of the area in question, it notes that the area is state-

owned, as it had been awarded to the State in a general reparceling. It was

inscribed as state-owned in the land register and is regarded as such in the

jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (judgment of 27 June 1984 dealing with the

determination of water limits in the Inari municipality). Powers inherent in

the ownership are used by the Finnish Forestry and Park Service (formerly the

Central Forestry Board), which is entitled, inter alia, to construct roads.

7.2 The State party further provides information on another case involving

planned logging and read construction activities in the Inari District, which

had been decided by the Inari District Court and the Rovaniemi Court of

Appeal. These courts assessed the matter at issue in the light of article 27

of the Covenant but concluded that the contested activities did net prevent

the complainants from practising reindeer herding.

7.3. As to the merits of the authors’ claim under article 27, the State party

concedes that the concept "culture" in article 27 also covers reindeer herding

as an “essential component of the Sami culture”. It examines whether the

quarrying permit, its exploitation, and the contract between the Central

Forestry Board and Arktinen Kivi Oy violates the authors' rights under article

27. In this connection, several provisions of Act No. 555/1981 on Extractable

Land resources are relevant. Thus, Section 6 stipulates that an extraction

(quarrying) permit may be delivered if certain conditions laid down in the Act

have been met. Section 11 defines these conditions as "orders which the

applicant must follow in order to avoid or restrict damages caused by the

project in question". Under Section 9, subsection 1, the contractor is liable

to compensate the owner of real estate for any extraction of land resources

which causes (environmental or other) damage which cannot be qualified as

minor. Section 16, litera 3, allows the State authority to amend the

conditions of the initial permit or to withdraw it, especially when extraction

of land resources has had unpredictable harmful environmental effects.

7.4 As to the permit issued to Arktinen Kivi Oy, the State party notes that

it is valid until 31 December 1999, but only if the Finnish Forestry and Park

Service upholds the contract until that date. Another condition requires that

during and after the quarrying, the area in question must be kept "clear and

safe". Condition No. 3 lays down that every year, quarrying should be carried

out within the period 1 April to 30 September, as requested by the

Muotkatunturi Herdsmens' Committee in its letter of 5 November 1989 to the

Inari municipality. This is because reindeers do not pasture in the area

during this period. The same condition also stipulates that means of

communication (transport) to and within the area must be arranged in

coordination with the Herdsmens' Committee, and that any demands of the Angeli

Community Committee should be given due consideration.

7.5 In October 1989, a contract between the Central Forestry Board and the

company was concluded, which gave the company the right to use and extract

stone in an area covering 10 hectares, to a maximum of 200 cubic metres. This

contract was valid until the end of 1993. Under the terms of the contract,

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1932

Annex

English

Page 6

means of transportation/communication had to be agreed upon with the district

forester. Edges cf holes had to be smoothed during quarrying; after quarrying,

the slopes had to be remodelled in such a way as not to constitute a danger

for animals and men and not to disfigure the landscape. In March 1993, the

company requested a new land lease contract; an inspection of the site on 30

July 1993 was attended by a representative of the Forest District, the

company, the Angeli Community Committee, the Herdsmens' Committee, and the

building inspector of Inari community. The company representatives noted that

the construction of a proper road was necessary for the project's

profitability; the representative of the Forest District replied that the

Herdsmens' Committee and the company had to find a negotiated solution. The

State party adds that the Forestry and Park Service has informed the

Government that a decision on a possible new contract with the company will

be taken only after the adoption of Views by the Committee in the present

case.

7.6 As to actual quarrying, the State party notes that the company's

activity in the area has been insignificant, both in terms of amount of

extracted stone (30 cubic metres) and the extent (10 hectares) of the

quarrying area on Mt. Riutusvaara. By comparison, the total area used by the

Muotkatunturi Herdsmens' Committee covers 2,586 square kilometres, whereas the

area fenced in for quarrying covered only approximately one hectare and is

only four kilometres away from the main road. In two expert statements dated

25 October 1991 submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court, it is noted

that “extraction of land resources from Etela-Riutusvaara has, as regards its

size, no significance on the bearing capacity of the pastures of the

Muotkatunturi Herdsmens' Committee". Neither can, in the State party's

opinion, the extraction have any other negative effects on reindeer husbandry.

The Government disagrees with the authors' assertion that already limited test

quarrying has caused considerable damage to Etela-Riutusvaara.

7.7 In the above context, the State party notes that it appears from an

opinion of the Environmental Office of the Lapland County Administrative Board

(dated 8 May 1991) that only low pressure explosives are used to extract stone

from the rock: "Extraction is carried out my means of sawing and wedging

techniques ... to keep the rock as whole as possible". As a result, possible

harm to the environment remains minor. Furthermore, it transpires from a

statement dated 19 August 1990 from the Inari Municipal Executive Board to the

County Administrative Board that special attention was paid by the Board and

the company to avoid disturbing reindeer husbandry in the area. The State

party refers to Section 2, subsection 2, of the Reindeer Husbandry Act, which

requires that the northernmost State-owned areas shall not be used in ways

which can seriously impair reindeer husbandry; it adds that the obligations

imposed by article 27 were observed in the permit proceedings.

7.8 With regard:to the question of road construction in the quarrying area,

the State. party notes that transport of the test blocks of stone initially

took place on an existing road line, with the help of one of the authors. The

company only extended the road line for approximately one kilometre into

another direction (not through the authors’ reindeer fences), while using the

existing road for transport of stone to the main road. The State party

observes that the road line has thus been decided upon by the authors

themselves. At a meeting on 15 October 1993 of the Inari Advisory Board, the

company advised that the construction of a proper road would improve the

profitability of the project; and as conceded by the Inari Municipal Board in

a written submission to the Supreme Administrative Court in August 1991, the

construction of such a road is technically possible without causing

disturbances for reindeer husbandry.

7.9 The State party submits that in the light of the above and given that

only 30 cubic metres of rock have actually been extracted, the company's

activity has been insignificant in relation to the authors' rights under

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992

Annex

English

Page 7

article 27, especially reindeer herding. Similar conclusions would apply to

the possible quarrying of the total allowable extractable amount of stone and

its transport over a proper road to the main road. In this context, the State

party recalls the Committee's Views in Lovelace v. Canada, which state that

"not every interference can be regarded as a denial of rights within the

meaning of article 27... (but) restrictions must have both a reasonable and

objective justification and be consistent with the other provisions of the

Covenant...". This principle, according to the State party, applies to the

present case.

7.10 The State party concedes "that the concept of culture in the sense of

article 27 provides for a certain protection of the traditional means of

livelihood for national minorities and can be deemed to cover livelihood and

related conditions insofar as they are essential for the culture and necessary

for its survival. This means that not every measure and every effect of it,

which in some way alters the previous conditions, can be construed as adverse

interference in the rights of minorities to enjoy their own culture under

article 27". Relevant references to the issue have been made by the

Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Law, in relation with Government

Bill 244/1989, to the effect that reindeer husbanary exercised by Samis shall

not be subject to unnecessary restrictions.

7.11 This principle, the State party notes, was underlined by the authors

themselves in their appeal to the Lapland County Administrative Board: thus,

before the domestic authorities, the authors themselves took the stand that

only unnecessary and essential interferences with their means of livelihood,

jn particular reindeer husbandry, would raise the spectre of a possible

violation of the Covenant.

7.12 The State disagrees with the statement of the authors' counsel before

the Supreme Administrative Court (10 June 1991) according to which, by

reference to the Committee's Views in the case of B. Ominayak and members of

the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada*, every measure, even a minor one, whicn

obstructs or impairs reindeer husbandry must be interpreted as prohibited by

the Covenant. In this context, the State party quotes from paragraph 9 of the

Committee's General Comment on article 27, which lays down that the rights

under article 27 are “directed to ensure the survival and continued

development of the cultural, religious and social identity of the minorities

concerned...". Furthermore, the question of “historical inequities", which

arose in the Lubicon Lake Band case, does not arise in the present case. The

State party rejects as irrelevant the authors' reliance on certain academic

interpretations of article 27 and on certain national court decisions. It

claims that the Human Rights Committee's Views in the case of Kitok? imply

that the Committee endorses the principle that States enjoy a certain degree

of discretion in the application of article 27 - which is normal in all

regulation of economic activities. According to the State party, this view is

supported by the decisions of the highest tribunals of States parties to the

Covenant and the European Commission on Human Rights.

7.13. The State party concludes that the requirements of article 27 have

"continuously been taken into consideration by the national authorities in

their application and implementation of the national legislation and the

measures in question". It reiterates that 4 margin of discretion must be left

to national authorities even in the application of article 27: "As confirmed

by the European Court of Human Rights in many cases ..., the national judge

2 " Views adopted by the Committee at its 38th session, 26 March 1990.

3 Case No. 197/1985, Views adopted during the Committee's 33rd

session on 27 July 1988, paragraph 9.3.

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992

Annex

English

Page 8

is in a better position than the international judge to make a decision. In

the present case, two administrative authorities and ... the Supreme

Administrative Court, have examined the granting of the permit and related

measures and considered them as lawful and appropriate". It is submitted that

the authors can continue to practise reindeer husbandry and are not forced to

abandon their lifestyle. The quarrying and the use of the old forest road

line, or the possible construction of a proper road, are insignificant or at

most have a very limited impact on this means of livelihood.

8.1 In his comments, dated 31 August 1994, counsel informs the Committee

that since the initial submission of the complaint, the Muotkatunturi

Herdsmens' Committee has somewhat changed its reindeer herding methods. As of

spring 1994, young fawns are not kept fenced in with their mothers, so that

the reindeer pasture more freely and for a larger part of the year than

previously in areas north of the road between Angeli and Inari, including

Southern Riutusvaara. Reindeer now also pasture in the area in April and

September. Counsel adds that Southern Riutusvaara is definitely not unsuitable

for reindeer pasture, as contended by the State party, as the reindeer find

edible lichen there.

8.2 As to the supplementary information provided by the State party, the

authors note that thus far, the companies quarrying on Mount Etela-Riutusvaara

have not covered any holes or smoothed edges and slopes after the expiry of

their contracts. The authors attach particular importance to the State party's

observation that the lease contract between the Central Forestry Board and

Arktinen Kivi Oy was valid until the end of 1993. This implies that no

contractual obligations would be breached if the Human Rights Committee were

to find that any further quarrying would be unacceptable in the light of

article 27.

8.3 As to the road leading to the quarry, the authors dismiss as misleading

the State party's argument that the disputed road has been or would have been

constructed in part "by one of the authors". They explain that the road line

has been drawn by the two companies wishing to extract stone from the area.

Counsel concedes however that the first company used a Sami as "employee or

subcontractor in opening the road line. This is probably the reason why the

person in question ... did not want to sign the communication to the Human

Rights Committee".

8.4 The authors criticize that the State party has set an unacceptably high

threshold for the application of article 27 of the Covenant and note that what

the Finnish authorities appear to suggest is that only once a State party has

explicitly conceded that a certain minority has suffered historical

inequities, it might be possible to conclude that new developments which

obstruct the cultural life of a minority constitute a violation of article 27.

To the authors, this interpretation of the Committee's Views in the Lubicon

Lake Band case is erroneous. They contend that what was decisive in Ominayak

was that a series of incremental adverse events could together constitute a

‘historical inequity’ which amounted to a violation of article 27.'

8.5 According to counsel, the situation of the Samis in the Angeli area may

be compared with "assimilation practices", or at least as a threat to the

cohesiveness of their group through quarrying, legging and other forms of

exploitation of traditional Sami land for purposes other than reindeer

herding.

‘ In this context, the authors refer to the analysis of the Views

in the Lubicon Lake Band case by Professor Benedict Kingsbury (25 Cornell

International Law Journal (1992)), and by Professor Manfred Nowak (CCPR

Commentary, 1993).

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992

Annex

English

Page 9

8.6 While the authors agree that the question of ownership of the land

tracts at issue is not per se the subject matter of the case, they observe

that (a) ILO Convention No. [69, although not yet ratified by Finland, has a

relevance for domestic authorities which is comparable to the effect of

concluded treaties (opinion No. 30 of 1993 by the Parliamentary Constitutional

Law Committee) and (b) neither the general reparceling nor the entries into

the land register can have constitutive effect for the ownership of

traditional Sami territory. In this context, the authors note that the

legislator is considering a proposal to create a system of collective land

ownership by the Sami villages:

"As long as the land title controversy remains unsettled..., Finnish

Samis live in a situation that is very sensitive and vulnerable in

relation to any measures threatening their traditional economic

activities. Therefore, the existing Riutusvaara quarry and the road to

it, created with the involvement of public authorities, are to be

considered a violation of article 27... The renewal of a land lease

contract between the Central Forestry Board [sc.: its legal successor]

and the ... company would also violate article 27".

8.7 Finally, the authors point to new developments in Finland which are said

to highlight the vulnerability of their own situation. As a consequence of the

Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), which entered into force on 1

January 1994, foreign and transnational companies registered within the EEA

obtain a broader access to the Finnish market than before. The most visible

consequence has been the activity of multinational mining companies in Finnish

Lapland, including the northernmost parts inhabited by Samis. Two large

foreign mining companies have registered large land tracts for research into

the possibility of mining operations. These areas are located in the herding

areas of some Reindeer Herding Committees. On 11 June 1994, the Sami

Parliament expressed concern over this development. The authors consider that

the outcome of the present case will have a bearing on the operation of the

foreign mining companies in question.

8.8 The information detailed in 8.7 above is supplemented by a further

submission from counsel dated 9 September 1994. He notes that the activity of

multinational mining companies in Nerthern Lapland has led to a resurgence of

interest among Finnish companies in the area. Even a Government agency, the

Centre for Geological Research (Geologian tutkimuskeskus) has applied for land

reservations on the basis of the Finnish Mining Act. This agency has entered

six land reservations of 9 square kilometres each in the immediate vicinity

of the Angeli village and partly on the slopes of Mt. Riutusvaara. Two of

these land tracts are located within an aréa which is the subject of a legal

controversy about logging activities between the local Samis and the

government forestry authorities.

Examination of the merits:

9.1 The Committee has examined the present communication in the light of all

the information provided by the parties. The issue to be determined by the

Committee is whether quarrying on the flank of Mt. Etela-Riutusvaara, in the

amount that has taken place until the present time or in the amount that would

be permissible under the permit issued to the company which has expressed its

intention to extract stone from the mountain (i.e. up to a total of

5,000 cubic metres), would violate the authors’ rights under article 27 of the

Covenant.

9.2 It is undisputed that the authors are members of a minority within the

meaning of article 27 and as such have the right to enjoy their own culture;

it is further undisputed that reindeer husbandry is an essential element of

their culture. In this context, the Committee recalls that economic activities

CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992

Annex

English

Page 10

May come within the ambit of article 27, if they are an essential element of

the culture of an ethnic community’*. .