conjunction with the indigenous peoples concerned, to ensure that indigenous sacred places, 15 including burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected.” 84. The Complainants also accuse the Kenyan authorities of interfering with the Endorois’ right to freely practice their religion by evicting them from their land, and then refusing to grant them free access to their sacred sites. This separation from their land, they argue, prevents the Endorois from carrying out sacred practices central to their religion. 85. They argue that even though Article 8 provides that states may interfere with religious practices “subject to law and order” , the Endorois religious practices are not a threat to law and order, and thus there is no justification for the interference. They argue that the limitations placed on the state’s duties to protect rights should be viewed in light of the underlying sentiments of the African Charter. In Amnesty International v. Zambia, the Complainants argue that the African Commission noted that it was “of the view that the ‘claw-back’ clauses must not be interpreted against the principles of the Charter… Recourse to these should not be used as a means of giving credence to violations of 16 the express provisions of the Charter.” Alleged Violation of Article 14 – The Right to Property Article 14 of the African Charter states: The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws. 86. The Complainants argue that the Endorois community has a right to property with regard to their ancestral land, the possessions attached to it, and their cattle. They argue that these property rights are derived both from Kenyan law and the African Charter, which recognise indigenous peoples’ property rights over their ancestral land. The Complainants argue that the Endorois’ property rights have been violated by the continuing dispossession of the Lake Bogoria land area. They argue that the impact on the community has been disproportionate to any public need or general community interest. 87. Presenting arguments that Article 14 of the Charter has been violated, the Complainants argue that for centuries the Endorois have constructed homes, cultivated the land, enjoyed unchallenged rights to pasture, grazing, and forest land, and relied on the land to sustain their livelihoods around the lake. They argue that in doing so, the Endorois exercised an indigenous form of tenure, holding the land through a collective form of ownership. Such behaviour indicated traditional African land ownership, which was rarely written down as a codification of rights or title, but was, nevertheless, understood through mutual recognition and respect between landholders. ‘Land transactions’ would take place only by way of conquest of land. 88. The Complainants argue that even under colonial rule when the British Crown claimed formal possession of Endorois land, the colonial authorities recognised the Endorois’ right to occupy and use the land and its resources. They argue that in law, the land was recognised as the “Endorois Location” and in practice the Endorois were left largely undisturbed during colonial rule. They aver that the Endorois community continued to hold such traditional rights, interests and benefits in the land surrounding Lake Bogoria even upon the creation of the independent Republic of Kenya in 1963. They st state that on 1 May 1963, the Endorois land became ‘Trust Land’ under Section 115(2) of the Kenyan Constitution, which states: Each County Council shall hold the Trust Land vested in it for the benefit of the persons ordinarily resident on that land and shall give effect to such rights, interests or other benefits in respect of the land as may, under the African customary law for the time being in force and applicable thereto, be vested in any tribe, group, family or individual. 89. They argue that through centuries of living and working on the land, the Endorois were “ordinarily resident on [the] land” , and their traditional form of collective ownership of the land qualifies as a “right, interest or other benefit… under African customary law” vested in “any tribe, group [or] family” for the purposes of Section 115(2). They, therefore, argue that as a result, under Kenyan law, the Baringo and Koibatek County Councils were – and indeed still are – obligated to give effect to the rights and interests of the Endorois as concerns the land.