102. However, having not ed that most of the a II ega t ions made by the App li cant hinge on the question as to whether or not the Ogieks const itut e central to the an in digenous determination population . This of the merits of the issue is alleged v i o l ations and shall be dealt with from the onset. A. The Ogieks as an Indigenous Population Applicant's Submission 103. The App licant argues that the Ogiek are an "indigenous people" and should enjoy the rights recognised by the Charter and international human rights law including the recognition of their status as an "indige nou s people". The App li cant substantiates its contention by stating that the Ogieks have been living in the Mau Forest for generations since time immemorial and that their way of life and survival as a hunter-gatherer community is inextricably linked to the forest which is their ancestral l and. Respondent's Submission 104. The Respondent's position is that the Ogieks are not a distinct ethnic group but rather a mi xture of various ethnic communities . During the Public Hearing however , the Respondent admitted that the Ogieks constitute an indig enous population in Kenya but that the Ogieks of today are different from those of the 1930s and 1990s having transformed their way of life through time and adapted themselves to modern life and are currently like all other Kenyans . The Court's Assessment 105. The Court notes that the concept of indigenous population is not defined in the C harter. For that matter, there is no universally accepted definition