Thread by @MartinScheinin

For the first time Finland was found to violate the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), by the respective UN human rights treaty body (CERD). The case concerns the rights of the indigenous Sámi. 1/x tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/tr…

2/x. Disclosure: I had the pleasure to serve as counsel pro bono for the applicants. The first applicant was @ANuorgam , an elected member of the Sámi Parliament in Finland and Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues @UN4Indigenous

3/x. Issue: The case was about interference in the then ongoing Sámi Parliament elections in 2015 by the Supreme Administrative Court that ordered dozens of persons to be inserted in the electoral roll against the eligibility determination made by the Sámi themselves

4/x. Context: Similar findings of violations of the #ICCPR were made earlier by the Human Rights Committee in Tiina Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (2668/2015) and Klemetti Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland (2950/2017), published in February 2019 but still awaiting implementation by Finland

5/x. Finding and Remedy: CERD established a violation of ICERD Article 5 (c) and "recommends" quick amendment of the law. (Note: the Human Rights Committee uses the wording "is under an obligation", derived from ICCPR Article 2(3).)

6/x. Rationale A: ICERD is not only about overt racism but also prohibits any conduct based on, inter alia, ethnic origin which has the "purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights", Art 1(1). Hence 9.5

7/x. Rationale B: Courts of a State may have a role in protecting individuals against discrimination or arbitrariness by an indigenous community but they must respect the right of self-determination and the customs and traditions of the group

8/x. Important A: The new CERD case brings an end to claims that the two UN human rights treaty bodies would represent differing positions concerning indigenous people membership. CERD clarifies the chronology of the misunderstanding by the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland

9/x. Important B: The case follows a line of recent CERD and Human Rights Committee cases where the respective treaties are being interpreted in the light of UNDRIP, the UN Declaration or the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A soft source gives rise to hard law

10/10. Movie night: Here's a 3-hour video of an international expert workshop of last September where the issue of Sámi membership was addressed from the perspectives of ICCPR, ICERD, ILO 169, UNDRIP, the Finnish Constitution, Sámi in Norway & Sweden, etc.