180. The Respondent State also argues that it has also gone a step further to formulate “Rules”, namely the “The Forests (Tugen-Kamasia) Rules” to enable the inhabitants of the Baringo Duistrict, including the Endorois to enjoy some privileges through access to the Ol Arabel Forest for some purposes. The Rules, it states, allow the community to collect dead wood for firewood, pick wild berries and fruits, take or collect the bark of dead trees for thatching beehives, cut and remove creepers and lianes for building purposes, take stock, including goats, to such watering places within the Central Forests as may be approved by the District Commissioner in consultation with the Forest Officer, enter the Forest for the purpose of holding customary ceremonies and rites, but no damage shall be done to any tree, graze sheep within the Forest, graze cattle for specified periods during the dry season with the written permission of the District Commissioner or the Forest Officer and to retain or construct huts within the Forest by approved forest cultivators among others. 181. The Respondent State argues further that the above Rules ensure that the livelihoods of the community are not compromised by the gazettement, in the sense that the people could obtain food and building materials, as well as run some economic activities such as beekeeping and grazing livestock in the Forest. They also say they were at liberty to practice their religion and culture. Further, it states that the due process of law regarding compensation was followed at the time of the said gazettement. 182. Regarding the issue of dispossession of ancestral land in the alleged Mochongoi Forest, the Respondent State did not address it, as it argues that it was not part of the matters addressed by the High Court case, and therefore the African Commission would be acting as a tribunal of first instance if it did so. 183. The Respondent State does not dispute that the Lake Bogoria area of the Baringo and Koibatek Administrative Districts is the Endorois’ ancestral land. One of the issues the Respondent State is disputing is whether the Endorois are indeed a distinct Community. That question has already been answered supra. In para 1.1.6 of the Respondent State Mmerits brief, the State said: “Following the Declaration of the Lake Bogoria Game Reserve, the Government embarked on a resettlement exercise, culminating in the resettlement of the majority of the Endorois in the Mochongoi settlement scheme. This was over and above the compensation paid to the Endorois after their ancestral land around lake was gazetted.82 184. It is thus clear that the land surrounding Lake Bogoria is the traditional land of the Endorois people. In para 1 of the Merits brief, submitted by the Complainants, they write: “The Endorois are a community of approximately 60, 000 people who, from time immemorial, have lived in the Lake 83 Bogoria area of the Baringo and Koibatek Administrative Districts.” In para 47, the Complainants also state that: “For centuries the Endorois have constructed homes on the land, cultivated the land, enjoyed unchallenged rights to pasture, grazing, and forest land, and relied on the land to sustain their livelihoods.” The Complainants argue that apart from a confrontation with the Masai over the Lake Bogoria region three hundred years ago, the Endorois have been accepted by all neighbouring tribes, including the British Crown, as bona fide owners of their land. The Respondent State does not challenge those statements of the Complainants. The only conclusion that could be reached is that the Endorois community has a right to property with regard to its ancestral land, the possessions attached to it, and their animals. 185. Two issues that should be disposed of before going into the more substantive questions of whether the Respondent State has violated Article 14 are a determination of what is a ‘property right’ (within the context of indigenous populations) that accords with African and international law, and whether special measures are needed to protect such rights, if they exist and whether Endorois’ land has been encroached upon by the Respondent State. The Complainants argue that “property rights”have an autonomous meaning under international human rights law, which supersedes national legal definitions. They state that both the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and IACtHR have examined the specific facts of individual situations to determine what should be classified as ‘property rights’, particularly for displaced persons, instead of limiting themselves to formal requirements in 84 national law. 186. To determine that question, the African Commission will look, first, at its own jurisprudence and then at international case law. In Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, land was