· p-;CHPII. ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rillhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility exercised by a people, bound together ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, identities and affinities, or other bonds.P by their historical, traditional, racial, ideological, geographical, economic 171. By this interpretation, the Commission established a set of criteria for identifying whether a group can be considered a people" under the African Charter. In other words, it is only a "peoples," as a collective of individuals bound by a cornmon history, tradition, race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, ideology, geography, economy, identity and affinity, that can be the beneficiaries of the right to self-determination.v' II 172. In the Endorois case, the Commission clarified thatfor a group to be considered a people, they should manifest certain objective attributes as a collective such as: a common historical tradition, racial or ethnic identity, cultural homogeneity, linguistic units], religious and ideological affinities, territorial connection, and a common economic life or other bonds, identities and affinities they collectively enjoy - especially rights enumerated under articles 19 to 24 of the African Charter - or suffer collectively from the deprivation of such rights. What is clear is that all attempts to define the concept of indigenous peoples recognise the linkages between peoples, their land, and culture and that such a group expresses its desire to be identified as a people or have the consciousness that they are a people» 173. In the instant case, it is not contested between the parties that the seven peoples of the Lower Omo, namely the Bodi, the Dassanech, the Hamar, the Kara, the Kwegu, the Mursi and the Nyangatom, allegedly impacted by the Gibe III darn and the Kuraz are "peoples" within the meaning ascribed to the concept under the African Charter. 174. In its written submissions, the Complainants submitted that the seven affected communities occupy or have occupied until recently the traditional territories delineated and shown on the maps in the attached bundle of documentary evidence.w The Complainants contended that since the Respondent State has not disputed that the Complainants are" peoples", they are therefore entitled to the protection of Articles 20 to 24 of the African Charter.F 175. The Complainants further submitted that even in the Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility, the Respondent State itself sought to rely upon the and Others v Cameroon (2009) AHRLR 9 (ACHPR 2009) para 171. case (n 33 above) para 171. 35 Endorois case (n 32 above) para 151; Communications 279/03 and 296/05 Organisation and another v Sudan (2009) AHRLR 153. 36 Merits Brief for the Complainants para 1. 37 Merits Brief for the Complainants para 80. 33 Gunme 34 GU1111le An Organ 01 the Afric;:an ~ ..-.,,) Union "'J'OJ.. 34 hllps:/achpr.au.intJO 0 Q