AUTONOMY
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
Tiina Sanila-Aikio v Finland (HRC)
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) has acted in caselaw to protect autonomous institutions of Indigenous peoples. In Tiina Sanila-Aikio v Finland (2019),15 the author, President of the Sami Parliament of Finland, argued that a decision by the State Party’s Supreme Administrative Court defining who is entitled to be included on the electoral roll for elections to the Sami Parliament - expanding the number of people eligible to vote or run as candidates in Indigenous parliamentary elections - departed from the consensual interpretation of section 3 of the Act on the Sami Parliament. 16 She claimed that this action weakened the voice of the Sami people in the Sami Parliament and the effectiveness of that Parliament in representing the Sami people in important decisions taken by the State Party that may affect their lands, culture and interests, violating the right to self-determination under Article 1 ICCPR. In addition, since the Sami Parliament plays an essential role in the protection of the Sami people’s right to enjoy their culture and language and is established by the State Party to be the conduit for securing the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Sami people in matters that may affect their interests, this dilution violates Article 27 ICCPR.17
The Committee observed that Article 27 interpreted in the light of UNDRIP, and Article 1, enshrines ‘an inalienable right of Indigenous peoples to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’.18 It emphasised that in the context of Indigenous peoples’ rights, Article 27 has a ‘collective dimension’ and the rights to political participation of an Indigenous community in the context of internal selfdetermination are not enjoyed merely individually.19 It further held that the Sami Parliament constitutes the institution by which the State Party ensures the effective participation of the members of the Sami people as an Indigenous community in the decisions that affect them. As a result, the State Party’s fulfilment of the obligations of Article 27 depend on the effective role that the Sami Parliament may play in decisions that affect the rights of members of the Sami community to enjoy their own culture or to use their own language in community with the other members of their group.20 By departing from the consensual interpretation of the law determining membership in the electoral rolls of the Sami Parliament, Finland had violated the Article 25 right to take part in public life read in conjunction with Article 27. Sanila-Aikio became the first complaint to be decided by the HRC concerning the Sami people’s right to selfdetermination.21 The case reflects the growing role of self-determination in interpreting Article 27 in the context of Indigenous caselaw.22
15 UN Doc. CCPR/C/124/D/2668/2015 (2019).
16 Ibid para 1.2.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid para 6.8.
19 Ibid para 6.9.
20 Ibid para 6.10.
21International Justice Resource Centre, ‘Human Rights Committee: Finland’s Oversight of Indigenous Politics Constitutes Violation’ 14 February 2019 <https://ijrcenter.org/2019/02/14/human-rights-committee-finlandsoversight-of-indigenous-politics-constitutes-violation/>
22 This may be contrasted with the Committee’s early position that Article 1 as a collective right was nonjusticiable in individual communications under the Optional Protocol. The argument was first put forward by Canada in Chief Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Lake Band v Canada UN Doc. CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984 (1990): ‘the right of self-determination is a collective one available to peoples. As such…it cannot be invoked by individuals under the Optional Protocol.’ (at para 6.3) The Committee then decided the case under Article 27 only: ‘Although initially couched in terms of alleged breaches of the provisions of article 1 of the Covenant, there is no doubt that many of the claims presented raise issues under article 27.’ (at para 32.2)
