(~~h 6~LtEB Hwnan a;ghts ou, Human and Peoples' Rights Collective Responsib11tty "placed under the control of the tribal authority" and that no one could "appropriate land belonging to another tribe". They maintain that the alienated land was never transferred to the Maasai Community as promised by the Respondent State government. cun:mi 4. The Complainants allege that the Maasai Community of Kitet (Kedong) faces the imminent risk of being evicted, thus suffering irreparable damage, as the authorities of the Respondent State are currently proceeding with the demarcation and sale of parts of their historical lands to third parties. 5. The Complainants allege that in 2020, with a view to establishing an industrial park within a Special Economic Zone, the Respondent State decreed the allocation, by announcement in the Official Gazette, of up to 1,000 hectares of Kedong Ranch, the disputed land, for the development of a special economic zone that will be known as the Naivasha Industrial Park Special Economic Zone (Naivasha Industrial Park Special Economic Zone). They argue that this land allocation was carried out without any prior involvement of the Maasai Community, and foreign direct investors were invited to sign contracts between the government and private investors and companies. 6. The Complainants also allege that the Respondent State, in a frenzy of major development, seems determined lo secure the full acquisition of the Kedong lands for investments in energy, logistics, real estate and tourism - as its lands are attractive because it sits atop a highly attractive wildlife corridor and potential geothermal energy basin where the Respondent State has initiated geothermal projects - with little or no regard for the rights of the Maasai community living on these lands. 7. The Complainants allege that the Special Economic Zone Plan (the Naivasha Special Economic Zone Master Plan) does not recognize the Maasai Community as the owner of the land, nor does it recognize its community leadership, and as such, it is excluded from benefiting from these investments. They claim that the Respondent State carries out these projects in partnership with other governments and public-private partnerships, but without the consent or participation of local communities, or with manipulation of their consent, offering monetary incentives to certain leaders. 8. The Complainants argue that the Maasai community should be forced to relocate any time a new phase of the project begins. Thus, the authorities of the Respondent State burned and destroyed their shelters by constructing fences and digging ditcbE!:R:IRQ~ ~~~ N.q .... • foundations around the disputed area. The Complainants also point out " \ c.~ ,tA~r 0 ..ot<'o time being, the only ·obstacle to the implementation of major projects is ~ co • 1<" cl',