Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it notes the fact that the Inter-American Court has not hesitated in granting the collective rights protection to groups beyond the “narrow/aboriginal/preColombian” understanding of indigenous peoples traditionally adopted in the Americas. In that regard, the African Commission notes two relevant decisions from the IACtHR: Moiwana v 70 Suriname and Saramaka v Suriname. The Saramaka case is of particular relevance to the Endorois 71 case, given the views expressed by the Respondent State during the oral hearings on the Merits. 160. In the Saramaka case, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainants, the Saramaka people are one of six distinct Maroon groups in Suriname whose ancestors were African slaves th forcibly taken to Suriname during the European colonisation in the 17 century. The IACtHR considered that the Saramaka people make up a tribal community whose social, cultural and economic characteristics are different from other sections of the national community, particularly because of their special relationship with their ancestral territories, and because they regulate themselves, at least partially, by their own norms, customs, and/or traditions. 161. Like the State of Suriname, the Respondent State (Kenya) in the instant communication is arguing that the inclusion of the Endorois in ‘modern society’ has affected their cultural distinctiveness, such that it would be difficult to define them as a distinct group that is very different from the Tugen sub-tribe or indeed the larger Kalenjin tribe, that is, the Respondent State is questioning whether the Endorois can be defined in a way that takes into account the different degrees to which various members of the Endorois community adhere to traditional laws, customs, and economy, particularly those living within the Lake Bogoria area. In the Saramaka case, the IACtHR disagreed with the State of Suriname that the Saramaka could not be considered a distinct group of people just because a few members do not identify with the larger group. In the instant case, the African Commission, from all the evidence submitted to it, is satisfied that the Endorois can be defined as a distinct tribal group whose members enjoy and exercise certain rights, such as the right to property, in a distinctly collective manner from the Tugen sub-tribe or indeed the larger Kalenjin tribe. 162. The IACtHR also noted that the fact that some individual members of the Saramaka community may live outside of the traditional Saramaka territory and in a way that may differ from other Saramakas who live within the traditional territory and in accordance with Saramaka customs does not affect the distinctiveness of this tribal group, nor its communal use and enjoyment of their property. In the case of the Endorois, the African Commission is of the view that the question of whether certain members of the community may assert certain communal rights on behalf of the group is a question that must be resolved by the Endorois themselves in accordance with their own traditional customs and norms and not by the State. The Endorois cannot be denied a right to juridical personality just because there is a lack of individual identification with the traditions and laws of the Endorois by some members of the community. From all the evidence (both oral and written and video testimony) submitted to the African Commission, the African Commission agrees that the Endorois are an indigenous community and that they fulfil the criterion of ‘distinctiveness.’ The African Commission agrees that the Endorois consider themselves to be a distinct people, sharing a common history, culture and religion. The African Commission is satisfied that the Endorois are a “people”, a status that entitles them to benefit from provisions of the African Charter that protect collective rights. The African Commission is of the view that the alleged violations of the African Charter are those that go to the heart of indigenous rights – the right to preserve one’s identity through identification with ancestral lands. Alleged Violation of Article 8 163. The Complainants allege that Endorois’ right to freely practice their religion has been violated by the Respondent State’s action of evicting the Endorois from their land, and refusing them access to Lake Bogoria and other surrounding religious sites. They further allege that the Respondent State’s has interfered with the Endorois’ ability to practice and worship as their faith dictates; that religious sites within the game reserve have not been properly demarcated and protected and since their eviction from the Lake Bogoria area, the Endorois have not been able to freely practice their religion. They claim that access as of right for religious rituals – such as circumcisions, marital rituals, and initiation rights – has been denied the community. Similarly, they state that the Endorois have not been