7 Communication 71/92 - Rencontre Africaine pour la Defence des Droits de l'Homme v. Zambia 8 Ibid 9 See Jawara v The Gambia para 33, Communication 300/05 - SERAC and Socio Economic Rights and Accountability Project v. Nigeria, para. 45 10 Jawara v The Gambia, para. 35 11 Communication 215/98 - Rights International v Nigeria 12 Communication 232/99 - John d Ouoko v Kenya 13 Art 3(b) of the AU Constitutive Act provides that one of the objectives of the Union shall be to "defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States". 14 Art 4(b) of the Constitutive Act provides that the Union shall function in accordance with the principle of "respect of borders existing on the achievement of independence". 15 See para 39 above where the Commission notes that ten reminders were sent to the Respondent State to submit its observations on the Admissibility of the Communication. 16 See para 69 above 17 That is Communications other than those Communications submitted by State Parties. 18 Communication 279/03 - Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan (COHRE case) (2009) ACHPR para 192 19 Communication 155/96 - Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria (SERAC case) (2001) ACHPR paras 59 - 61; 276/03 - Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group (on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council) v Kenya (Endoiros Case) (2009) ACHPR paras 186 - 238 20 Endorois Case, paras 186 - 238 21 Relying on arts 60 and 61 of the African Charter, the Commission is also inspired by the decision in the case of Saramaka People v Suriname (Saramaka case) (2007) IACtHR (Judgment of 28 November 2007), para 121 × In accordance with this Court's jurisprudence as stated in the Yakye Axa and Sawhoyamaxa cases, members of tribal and indigenous communities have the right to own the natural resources they have traditionally used within their territory for the same reasons that they have a right to own the land they have traditionally used and occupied for centuries. Without them, the very physical and cultural survival of such peoples is at stake.123 Hence the need to protect the lands and resources they have traditionally used to prevent their extinction as a people. That is, the aim and purpose of the special measures required on behalf of the members of indigenous and tribal communities is to guarantee that they may continue living their traditional way of life, and that their distinct cultural identity, social structure, economic system, customs, beliefs and traditions are respected, guaranteed and protected by States. . 22 Ibid 23 The Respondent State submits that the Province of Zaire also contributes significantly to the natural resources of Angola and accordingly, together with the Cabinda Province, enjoy certain privileges over and above other provinces. 24 COHRE case, para 223 25 This is consistent with international best practices. See for instance, the Saramaka decision, para 103 × Furthermore, the State's argument that it would be discriminatory to pass legislation that recognizes communal forms of land ownership is also without merit. It is a wellestablished principle of international law that unequal treatment towards persons in unequal situations does not necessarily amount to impermissible discrimination. Legislation that recognizes said differences is therefore not necessarily discriminatory. In the context of members of indigenous and tribal peoples, this Court has already stated that special measures are necessary in order to ensure their survival in accordance with their traditions and customs (supra paras. 78-86, 91, and 96). Thus, the State's arguments regarding its inability to create legislation in this area due to the alleged complexity of the issue or the possible discriminatory nature of such legislation are without merit. 26 Communication 308/05 - Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR, para 92 27 Communication 75/92 - Katangese Peoples' Congress v Zaire (1995) ACHPR para 4 28 Communication 155/96 - Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) & Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) v Nigeria (SERAC v Nigeria) (2001) para 56 29 SERAC v Nigeria, paras 57-58 30 Endorois v Kenya, para 268 16