purposes of admissibility, that this road construction could produce effects adverse to the enjoyment and practice of their rights under article 27. and that, accordingly, article 27 is directly applicable before the Finnish authorities and judicial instances. Thus, if, in the future, the Ministry of the Environment were to approve a plan for forest maintenance and care which would indeed endanger the subsistence of Sami culture and thus violate article 27, the victims of such a violation could submit a complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court. 5.5 On 9 July 1991, accordingly, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under article 27 of the Covenant. 5.6 The Committee also requested the State party to "adopt such measures, as appropriate, to prevent irreparable damage to the authors". Admissibility considerations 5.1 During its forty-second session, in July 1991, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted that the State party had raised no objection with regard to the admissibility of the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. It further took note of the State party's claim that the authors could not claim to be victims of a violation of the Covenant within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee reaffirmed that individuals can only claim to be victims within the meaning of article 1 if they are actually affected, although it is a matter of degree as to how concretely this requirement should be taken. The State party's request for review of the admissibility decision and the authors' reply 6.1 In its submission under article 4, paragraph 2, dated 10 February 1992, the State party notes that the Committee's acceptance, in the decision of 9 July 1991, of a causal link between the Wilderness Act and any measures taken outside the Hammastunturi Wilderness has changed the substance of the communication and introduced elements in respect of which the State party did not provide any admissibility information. It reiterates that in applying the Wilderness Act, Finnish authorities must take into consideration article 27 of the Covenant, "which, in the hierarchy of laws, is on the same level as ordinary laws". Samis who claim that their Covenant rights were violated by the application of the Act may appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court in respect of the plan for maintenance and care of the Wilderness area approved by the Ministry of the Environment. 5.2 Inasmuch as the authors claimed to be victims of a violation of article 27, both in respect of expected logging and road construction activities within the Hammastunturi Wilderness and ongoing road construction activities in the residual area located outside the Wilderness, the Committee observed that the communication related to both areas, whereas parts of the State party's observations could be read in the sense that the communication only related to the Hammastunturi Wilderness. 6.2 In respect of the activities outside the Hammastunturi Wilderness (the "residual area"), the State party submits that article 27 would entitle the authors to take action against the State or the Central Forestry Board before the Finnish courts. Grounds for such a legal action would be concrete measures taken by the State, such as road construction, which in the authors' opinion infringe upon their rights under article 27. A decision at first instance could be appealed to the Court of Appeal, and from there, subject to certain conditions, to the Supreme Court. The provincial government could be requested to grant provisional remedies; if this authority does not grant such a remedy, its decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeal and, subject to a re-trial permit, to the Supreme Court. 5.3 The Committee distinguished between the authors' claim to be victims of a violation of the Covenant in respect of road construction and logging inside the Hammastunturi Wilderness and such measures outside the Wilderness, including road construction and logging in the residual area south of the Wilderness. In respect of the former areas, the authors had merely expressed the fear that plans under preparation by the Central Forestry Board might adversely affect their rights under article 27 in the future. This, in the Committee's opinion, did not make the authors victims within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol, as they were not actually affected by an administrative measure implementing the Wilderness Act. Therefore, this aspect of the communication was deemed inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The State party adds that the fact that actions of this type have not yet been brought before the domestic courts does not mean that local remedies do not exist but merely that provisions such as article 27 have not been invoked until recently. Notwithstanding, the decisions of the higher courts and the awards of the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the recent past suggest that the impact of international human rights treaties is significantly on the increase. While the authors do not own the 5.4 In respect of the residual area, the Committee observed that the continuation of road construction into it could be causally linked to the entry into force of the Wilderness Act. In the Committee's opinion, the authors had sufficiently substantiated, for 7