\ r (J :HP ACH PR ], African Comrrussion on Human and Peoples' Rint1ts O,fHW' Human Rights our Collective Responsibility submitted that the right to self-determination of the indigenous peoples of the Lower Omo should be assessed based on their representation within the political structures of the Ethiopian federation, The Respondent State contended that all the affected nations, nationalities and peoples of the Lower Omo in the South Omo Zone of the SNNPR of Ethiopia are administered by elected representatives at the Kebele, Woredrz, state and federal goverrunent levels, respectively. 195. The Respondent State contended that the Lower Omo peoples are represented in the SNNPR's legislature (made up of the State Council and the Council of Nationalities) and in the State executive through various goverrunental bureaus on pastoral, agricultural and other affairs. The Respondent argues that, at the federal level, pastoralist communities are also represented in the two chambers of the federal legislature, namely: the House of Peoples' Representatives (which has a Standing Committee on Pastoralist Affairs) and the House of Federation. These administrators and representatives, the Respondent argues, represented the voices of the affected communities at the various levels of goverrunent in which the decision to proceed with the two projects were taken. 196. The Commission notes that under the Respondent's Constitution, "[n]ationals have the right to participate in national development and, in particular, to be consulted with respect to policies and projects affecting their community."51 The Respondent State submitted that the goverrunent started public consultations with the Omo peoples on the Gibe III dam in 2007 before the project commenced and on the Kuraz in 2013.52 197. From the foregoing, it is clear that the claim that participation in the consultations was inadequate must be balanced against the submission that consultation was done through the elected administrators and representatives of the peoples. That balance can only be struck by a scrutinous look at the evidence before the Commission. In the particular context of projects executed on indigenous lands, this Commission has previously noted that a government must consult the indigenous peoples on the use of their land in the public interest.P Consultation cannot be an alternative to obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities for the use of their ancestral lands. In the Endorois case, the Commission held that in the event that any development or investment projects [... ] would have a major impact within the Endorois territory, the state /I 51 Ethiopian Constitution Art 43(3), Respondent's Written Submissions on the Merit para 37. 53 Endorois case (n 32 above) para 291. 52 40