6. In July 1975, the Congolese government passed another law, No. 75-238, which extended the area of the National Park from 60,000 to 600,000 hectares, further encroaching on the ancestral lands of the Batwa communities, resulting in an increase in evictions, bringing the number of evicted families since 1970 to about 6,000, without any compensation or prior consultation. Though other communities were also evicted, they refused to leave and to date they still live on their lands in the forests and use some parts for agricultural activities. 7. According to them, the situation of the Batwas who are a vulnerable and marginalised community as a result of some societal prejudices against them, has worsened considerably due to the evictions and their aftereffects which have disrupted their harmonious existence with nature. Currently, they live in abject poverty in makeshift camps on the fringes of the forests of other Bantu villages. They have been deprived of their lands and can no longer practice their traditional way of life nor even have access to the most basic social services. Furthermore, they are suffering from a high rate of malnutrition, mortality and various diseases. Additionally, the fact that they live among other majority groups without the same culture or lifestyle makes them victims of a deep-seated discrimination in terms of behaviors and attitudes. 8. In order to recover their lands, the Batwa communities have initiated a legal action against the Congolese government and the ICCN at the District Court in Uvira, South Kivu (TGI), with the support of ERND, by alleging the violation of Law No. 77-001 of 22 February, 1977, governing expropriation for a public purpose, thus culminating in their arbitrary eviction from their lands without compensation which is a violation of Articles 34(1), (2) and (4) of the Constitution of the DRC on expropriation. 9. The Complainants allege that they also relied on many provisions of international law, in particular, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter) to claim the specific rights of the victims, including the right to life; the right to practice one's culture and religion, the right to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources, the right not to suffer any discrimination, as well as the right to health and education. 10. The District Court gave a judgment on 28 February 2011, in which it declared that the case bordered on the issue of the constitutionality of the laws establishing and extending the boundaries of the Park (Laws No. 70-316 of 30 November 1970 and No. 75-238 of 22 ]uly 1975). It therefore ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits and dismissed the Complaint. 2