Kitok v. Sweden
In the 1988 Kitok v. Sweden case, the →Human Rights Committee addressed the issue of →belonging to a minority. In a landmark decision, also for the rights of →indigenous peoples, it was confirmed that individuals cannot rely on the →right to self-determination under Article 1 of the →International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Ivan Kitok, a Swedish citizen of Sami ethnic origin, asserted that due to his formal exclusion from the Sami community, he had been denied his ancestral right to reindeer husbandry and thereby his right under Article 27 to enjoy his culture in community with other Samis had been violated. He did not contest that effective measures are needed to ensure the future of reindeer breeding and the livelihood of those for whom this activity is the primary source of income. Sweden chose to secure these objectives by way of limiting the right to engage in reindeer breeding to members of the Sami villages (Sameby). Membership of a Sameby, in turn, was granted by the Sami village itself. The Human Rights Committee expressed doubts as to the statutory restrictions affecting the membership of ethnic Samis, and in particular the lack of consideration of objective ethnic criteria: „the Act provides certain criteria for participation in the life of an ethnic minority whereby a person who is ethnically a Sami can be held not to be a Sami for the purposes of the Act… [T]he ignoring of objective ethnic criteria in determining membership of a minority, and the application to Mr. Kitok of the designated rules, may have been disproportionate to the legitimate ends sought by the legislation”. However, guided by the ratio decidendi of →Lovelace v. Canada and weighing up all the circumstances of the case, the Committee decided that the restriction upon the right of an individual member of a minority was shown to have a reasonable and objective justification and was necessary for the continued viability and welfare of the minority as a whole, and thus found no violation of Article 27.