Human Rights our Collective Responsibility development, prevails.i" management and governance, in investment agreements 227. As the Commission has previously stated in its jurisprudence, the right to freely dispose of wealth and natural resources located in ancestral or traditional lands is also vested in the indigenous populations by virtue of Article 21(1) of the African Charter.F> In the case of Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and Another v Nigeria (Ogoni case), the Commission made it clear that a people domiciled on a resource-rich territory within a state can claim the protection of Article 21 of the African Charter." 228. Although the Endorois case does provide a useful guide on how the alleged use of indigenous lands in the public interest can be determined to benefit or not benefit indigenous populations, it is not on all fours with the instant case. This is because, in that case, the Complainants claimed that they have a right to property with regard to their ancestral land pursuant to Article 14 of the African Charter. Hence, the Commission held - relying on persuasive jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights - that the right to property in Article 14 of the African Charter is linked to the right of indigenous peoples to natural resources located in ancestral lands. The Commission held that for Kenya to be justified in limiting the rights of the Endorois to Ruby mining on their ancestral lands, the Government was expected to satisfy the following two-pronged test that: (a) it was in the interest of public need and the general interest of the community; and (b) it was in accordance with appropriate laws. The Commission observed that none of these tests had been satisfied by the Respondent in that case and, as such, found a violation of the rights of the Endorois people under Articles 14 and 21 of the African Charter. The Commission held that the Endorois people have a right to freely dispose of their natural resources in consultation with the Respondent in that case."? 229. In the present case, the Commission notes that the Respondent State has been in consultations with the seven affected peoples of the Lower Omo. The evidence before the Commission shows that the Omo people have been participating in these consultations directly and through their representatives. The evidence before the Commission also shows that the potential adverse human rights impacts of these projects have either been avoided or significantly mitigated. 49 https:lachpr.au.inVO 0 0