p.CHPif ( ~ T') 6~!J,;EB Q.uw.~ Human and Peoples' Rights Humae R<ghts ou, Collective Responsibility economic zone with mega development projects covering various sectors was carried out without the involvement, participation or consent of the Kedong Maasai community. 136. They state that in Endorois, the African Commission stressed that "the right to development is a two-pronged test: that it is constitutive and instrumental, or useful as a means and as an end." The Commission focused on two main issues: the extent to which the community was consulted prior to development; and whether this development brings benefits to the community concerned. They allege, therefore, that the aggressively imposed developments by the government and its collaborators on the lands belonging to the Maasai of Kedong, in particular, the plan contained in the Master Plan to transform Kedong into a special economic zone, flagrantly violate the right of the Maasai of Kedong to development. 137. According to the Complainants, the World Bank considers that "indigenous peoples are generally among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society." As a result, indigenous peoples have been the target of a wide range of initiatives, efforts and programmes to help them achieve economic development. However, they argue most of the time, the strategies adopted to achieve this noble goal have been developed externally and based on modernization. These efforts, they state, have failed miserably to improve the economic situation of indigenous peoples and, at the same time, have undermined their traditional way of life, leaving them less selfsufficient and therefore worse off than before. 138. They affirm that indigenous groups, by virtue of their existence, have the right to live freely in their own territory. They submit that the close ties of indigenous peoples with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity and their economic survival. 139. The Complainants emphasise that, given that the land is communal property, it is therefore highly suspicious that the High Court of the Respondent State dismissed the case based on an out-of-court agreement signed by representatives of a minority with Kedong Company Limited.