Kisebbségpolitikai
On-line Lexikon

In November 2018, the →Human Rights Committee adopted its views in two cases against Finland. At issue was the right of the Sami people to determine the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own customs, traditions and procedures. In respect of both Sanila-Aikio and Käkkäläjärvi et al., the Committee held that the interpretation of the Finland Supreme Administrative Court concerning who was eligible to be a member of the Sami Parliament’s electoral roll violated Article 25 (participation in public affairs, right to vote) of the →International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, read alone and in conjunction with Article 27 (minority rights), and in light of Article 1 (peoples’ right to self-determination). The Committee recalled its principled statement in →Lovelace v. Canada when asserting that „the category of persons belonging to an indigenous people may in some instances need to be defined to protect the viability and welfare of a minority as a whole”. It also referred to →Kitok v. Sweden in that „a restriction upon the right of an individual member of a minority must be shown to have a reasonable and objective justification and to be necessary for the continued viability and welfare of the minority as a whole”. Furthermore, the Committee made explicit references to self-identification as a criterion for the determination of a person as indigenous (in compliance with recommendations of the →Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination), as well as to several articles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of →Indigenous Peoples, which essentially provide self-determination for indigenous communities on membership issues. The views highlight the connection between the subjective self-determination standard of →belonging to a minority and the objective criteria that underpin the process of decision-making.