170. The Respondent State has not denied that the Endorois’ have been removed from their ancestral land they call home. The Respondent State has merely advanced reasons why the Endorois can no longer stay within the Lake Bogoria area. The Complainants argue that the Endorois’ inability to practice their religion is a direct result of their expulsion from their land and that since their eviction the Endorois have not been able to freely practice their religion, as access for religious rituals has been denied the community. 171. It is worth noting that in Amnesty International v. Sudan, the African Commission recognised the 76 centrality of practice to religious freedom. The African Commission noted that the State Party violated the authors’ right to practice their religion, because non-Muslims did not have the right to preach or build their churches and were subjected to harassment, arbitrary arrest, and expulsion. The African Commission also notes the case of Loren Laroye Riebe Star from the IACmHR, which determined that expulsion from lands central to the practice of religion constitutes a violation of religious freedoms. It notes that the Court held that the expulsion of priests from the Chiapas area was 77 a violation of the right to associate freely for religious purposes. 172. The African Commission agrees that in some situations it may be necessary to place some form of limited restrictions on a right protected by the African Charter. But such a restriction must be established by law and must not be applied in a manner that would completely vitiate the right. It notes the recommendation of the HRC that limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are 78 predicated. The raison d'être for a particularly harsh limitation on the right to practice religion, such as that experienced by the Endorois, must be based on exceptionally good reasons, and it is for the Respondent State to prove that such interference is not only proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated, but is also reasonable. In the case of Amnesty International v. Sudan, the African Commission stated that a wide-ranging ban on Christian associations was “disproportionate to the measures required by the government to maintain public order, security, and safety.” The African Commission further went on to state that any restrictions placed on the rights to practice one’s religion should be negligible. In the above mentioned case, the African Commission decided that complete 79 and total expulsion from the land for religious ceremonies is not minimal. 173. The African Commission is of the view that denying the Endorois access to the Lake is a restriction on their freedom to practice their religion, a restriction not necessitated by any significant public security interest or other justification. The African Commission is also not convinced that removing the Endorois from their ancestral land was a lawful action in pursuit of economic development or ecological protection. The African Commission is of the view that allowing the Endorois to use the land to practice their religion would not detract from the goal of conservation or developing the area for economic reasons. The African Commission therefore finds against the Respondent State a violation of Article 8 of the African Charter. The African Commission is of the view that the Endorois’ forced eviction from their ancestral lands by the Respondent State interfered with the Endorois’ right to religious freedom and removed them from the sacred grounds essential to the practice of their religion, and rendered it virtually impossible for the community to maintain religious practices central to their culture and religion. The African Commission is of the view 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. This was the view of the Commission, inAmnesty International v. Zambia, where it noted that the ‘claw-back’ clauses must not be interpreted against the principles of the Charter … and that recourse to these should not be used 80 as a means of giving credence to violations of the express provisions of the Charter.”