Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:10:23.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Views Adopted by the Committee Under Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, Concerning Sanila-aikio v. Finland, Communication No. 2668/2015, and Klemetti Käkkäläjärvi et al., Communication No. 2950/2017 (H.R. Comm'n)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2020

CJ Iorns Magallanes
CJ Iorns Magallanes*
Affiliation:
CJ Iorns Magallanes BA, LLB, Wgtn, LLM, Yale is Professor of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On November 1 and 2, 2018, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (the Committee) adopted views pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol in the cases of Sanila-Aikio v. Finland and Klemetti Käkkäläjärvi et al. In respect of both communications, the Committee considered that the interpretation made by the Finland Supreme Administrative Court (the Court), of who was eligible to be a member of the Sami Parliament's electoral roll, violated Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant), read alone and in conjunction with Article 27, and in light of Article 1.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 302 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 by The American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Käkkäläjärvi v. Finland, Communication No. 2950/2017, Views adopted by the Committee Under Art. 5(4) of the Optional Protocol (Nov. 2, 2018), ¶ 2.7. See also Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, Communication No. 2668/2015, Individual opinion of Olivier de Frouville (concurring) (Nov. 1, 2018), ¶ 4.

2 Käkkäläjärvi v. Finland, supra note 1, at para 2.10. See also Sanila-Aikio v Finland, supra note 2, at para 3.5.

3 Id. ¶ 3.5.

4 Käkkäläjärvi v. Finland, Communication No. 2950/2017, Views adopted by the Committee Under art. 5(4) of the Optional Protocol (Nov. 2, 2018), ¶ 2.15.

5 Id. ¶ 2.16.

6 Id. ¶ 2.17.

7 Id. ¶ 8.9.

8 Id. ¶ 9.11.

9 Id. ¶ 8.6.

10 Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, supra note 2, ¶ 6.9.

11 Id.

12 Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. 24/1977, Views adopted by the Committee Under art. 5(4) of the Optional Protocol (July 30, 1981), ¶ 16; Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, supra note 2, ¶ 6.5.

13 Kitok v. Sweden, Communication No. 197/1985, Views adopted by the Committee Under art. 5(4) of the Optional Protocol (Mar. 25, 1987), ¶ 9.8; Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, supra note 2, ¶ 6.5.

14 Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, supra note 2, ¶¶ 3.1–3.2.

15 Id. ¶ 6.11.

16 Id.

17 See Catherine J. Iorns Magallanes, Indigenous Rights and Democratic Rights in International Law: An ‘Uncomfortable Fit’, 15 UCLA J. Int'l L. & Foreign Aff. 111–82 (2010). Available from, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941389.

18 Sanila-Aikio v. Finland, supra note 2, ¶ 6.11.