108. See Articles 8(2) (b), 10, 25, 26 and 27 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 109. Para 110 of the Saramaka case. 110. The Mayagna Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua , paras. 140(b) and 151. 111. Ibid, at para. 148. 112. Ibid, at para. 151. 113. See case of the The Mayagna Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua , supra note 184, para. 151. th 114. See case of the Moiwana Community Judgment of 15 June 2005. Series C No. 124. para. 134. 115. See case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note [101], [popup=paras. 124-131]124. In its analysis of the content and scope of Article 21 of the Convention in the instant case, the Court will take into account, in light of the general rules of interpretation set forth in Article 29 of that same Convention, as it has done previously, the special meaning of communal property of ancestral lands for the indigenous peoples, including the preservation of their cultural identity and its transmission to future generations, as well as the steps that the State has taken to make this right fully effective (supra para. 51). 125. Previously this Court as well as the European Court of Human Rights have asserted that human rights are live instruments, whose interpretation must go hand in hand with evolution of the times and of current living conditions. Said evolutionary interpretation is consistent with the general rules of interpretation embodied in Article 29 of the American Convention, as well as those set forth in the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law. 126. In this regard, this Court has stated that interpretation of a treaty should take into account not only the agreements and documents directly related to it (paragraph two of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention), but also the system of which it is a part (paragraph three of Article 31 of said Convention). 127. In the instant case, in its analysis of the scope of Article 21 of the Convention, mentioned above, the Court deems it useful and appropriate to resort to other international treaties, aside from the American Convention, such as ILO Convention No. 169, to interpret its provisions in accordance with the evolution of the inter-American system, taking into account related developments in International Human Rights Law. 128. In this regard, the Court has pointed out that: The corpus juris of international human rights law comprises a set of international instruments of varied content and juridical effects (treaties, conventions, resolutions and declarations). Its dynamic evolution has had a positive impact on international law in affirming and building up the latter’s faculty for regulating relations between States and the human beings within their respective jurisdictions. This Court, therefore, must adopt the proper approach to consider this question in the context of the evolution of the fundamental rights of the human person in contemporary international law. 129. It is also necessary to take into account that, in view of Article 29(b) of the Convention, none of its provisions can be interpreted as “restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party.” 130. ILO Convention No. 169 contains numerous provisions pertaining to the right of indigenous communities to communal property, which is addressed in this case, and said provisions can shed light on the content and scope of Article 21 of the American Convention. The State ratified and included said Convention 169 in its domestic legislation by means of Law No. 234/93. 131. Applying said criteria, this Court has underlined that the close relationship of indigenous peoples with the land must be acknowledged and understood as the fundamental basis for their culture, spiritual life, wholeness, economic survival, and preservation and transmission to future generations.. 116. Nazila Ghanea and Alexandra Xanthaki (2005) (eds). 'Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Land and Natural Resources' in Erica-Irene Daes ‘Minorities, Peoples and Self-Determination’, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 117. Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Comm Nos. 140/94, 141/94, 145/95 (1999),[/i] para. 42 (hereinafter The Constitutional Rights Project Case 1999). 118. , No. 5493/72, Series A.24 (7 December 1976), para. 49. 119. The Constitutional Rights Project Case , para. 42. 120. resolution 1993/77, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/RES/77 and United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution 2004/28, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/RES/28. Both resolutions reaffirm that the practice of forced eviction is a gross violations of human rights and in particular the right to adequate housing. 121. Pursuant to Kenyan law, the authorities published notice 239/1973 in the Kenya Reserve to declare the creation of “Lake Hannington Game Reserve.” Gazette notice 270/1974 was published to revoke the earlier notice and change the name of the game reserve on 12 October 1974: “the area set forth in the schedule hereto to be a game reserve known as Lake Bogoria Game Reserve.” th 122. See section 3(2) for relevant parts of WAPA. Section 3(2) was subsequently revoked on 13 February 1976 by S.68 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. 123. See section 3(20) of WAPA, which did not allow the Kenyan Minister for Tourism and Wildlife to remove the present occupiers. 124. See para 3.3.3 of the Respondent State’s Merits brief. 125. See note 125. 126. The mechanics of such a ‘setting apart’ of Trust Land under S.117 or S.118 of the Constitution are laid down by the Kenyan Trust Land Act. Publication is required by S.13(3) and (4) of the Trust Land Act in respect of S.117 Constitution, and by s.7(1) and (4) of the Trust land Act in respect of S.118 Constitution. 127. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, preambular para. 5, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 (1994). 128. See Case of Huilca Tecse Judgment of 3 March 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 86, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters , para. 133. 129. See case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, para. 149. 130. Indeed, at para 140 of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay case, the Inter-American