I'.CHP~ .~6~,ttE~ Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples' Rights (iv) The Lower Omo peoples had done so in the knowledge that they could choose not to support the Project without suffering any adverse consequences; and (v) The Lower Omo peoples had done so according to their customs and traditions and 'in a form appropriate to the circumstances.P 96. The Complainants submitted that none of the above criteria was satisfied in connection with the Gibe III or Kuraz. 97. The Complainants further emphasised that, with respect to the Kuraz project, they were given no opportunity at all to participate in the decision to plant sugar cane on their customary lands. That their first knowledge of the project came about from the Prime Minister's speech delivered in Jinka in January 2011;but as the speech made clear, the decision to convert those lands to sugar cane plantations and to proceed with the development that year had already been made. (ii) Alleged violation of Article 21 (1) of the Charter 98. The Complainants submitted that Article 21(1)of the African Charter gives effect to the economic aspect of the right of self-determination established by Article 20(1). 99. The Complainants further submitted that the territories on which they have traditionally grazed their livestock is an invaluable natural resource, which the Kuraz project had already encroached on without their consent and due consultation of the affected peoples. They submitted that the loss of their grazing lands will make it impossible for the Complainants to maintain their herds. They also submitted that by being forced by the Respondent State to sell their cattle under the circumstances, their right not to be deprived of their wealth (and of their means of subsistence under Article 1(2) of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been violated. 100. The Complainants submitted that even if the Omo River and/ or the lands allocated to sugar were regarded in whole or part as the natural resources of the Respondent State, the denial of access to the River Omo and/ or to their grazing lands will still have violated their rights under Article 21(1)of the African Charter 30 Endorois case. An Oroan of the Afri<~an(("'1 Union ~;"iiY.. 21