. ., ACH PR 'I',CH":h"O' . ~;i , . . ,/. O:O.:nD , African Commission, o~ Human and Peoples Hiqhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility environment favorable to their development. C. Complainants' reply 152. The Complainants submitted in reply to the Respondent State's brief on the merits dated 27 November 2015 that both parties largely accept that the Complainants are a "peoples". That they have the right to decide for themselves whether, when and how to change their way of life which is a fundamental element of Articles 20(1), 21(1), 22(1) and 24 of the African Charter. The Complainants submitted that it is agreed by the parties "that the rights conferred by these provisions cannot be abridged in the interest of public need or in the general interest. 153. The Complainants submitted that not only did the Respona~ntstate's arguments and the evidence in support thereof fail to refute the key allegations against the Respondent State, but also that the Respondent State confirmed that: (a) It failed to take into account while pursuing its development projects the rights of the Complainants under the African Charter or any other legal instrument contrary to Articles 20(1),21(1),22(1) of the African Charter; (b) It took no effective steps to protect the Complainants' rights under Article 21 of the African Charter to freely dispose of their natural resources; and (c) It took no effective steps to secure the Complainants free, prior or informed consent for either Gibe III or the Kuraz Social Development Plan. 154. In reply to the Respondent State's counter argument that the Omo annual floods are not a natural resource, the Complainants clarified that the concept of "natural resources" under Article 21 of the African Charter is a broad one that is unrestricted in its use in the African Charter as decided by the Commission in the Endorois case. 155. In reply to the Respondent State's submission or argument that flood retreat agriculture was not in itself sufficient to sustain the Lower Omo peoples, the Complainants submitted that Article 21 of the African Charter would have been robbed of any effect if it applied only to a natural resource which provided an indigenous people with its sole means of subsistence. This, they argued, is because most indigenous peoples depend on a variety of natural resources. An0'0'" ot the African (~)' UnIOn~,~1)j ? 30