30 capturing of animals within the game reserve. Yet, the Complainants argue, despite a lack of legal justification, the Endorois Community were informed from 1973 onwards that they would have to leave their ancestral lands. 105. Moreover, they argue, the declaration of the Lake Bogoria Game Reserve by way of the 1974 notice did not affect the status of the Endorois’ land as Trust Land. The obligation of Baringo and Koibatek County Councils to give effect to the rights and interests of the Endorois community continued. They state that the only way under Kenyan law in which the Endorois benefits under the trust could have been dissolved is through the County Council or the President of Kenya having to “set apart” the land. However, the Trust Land Act required that to be legal, such setting apart of the land 31 must be published in theKenyan Gazette. 106. The Complainants argue that as far as the community is aware, no such notice was published. Until this is done, they argue, Trust Land encompassing Lake Bogoria cannot have been set apart and 32 the African customary law rights of the Endorois people continue under Kenyan law. They state that the Kenyan High Court failed to protect the Endorois’ rights under the Trust to a beneficial property right, and the instruction given to the Endorois to leave their ancestral lands was also not authorised by Kenyan law. 107. They conclude that as a result, the Kenyan authorities have acted in breach of trust and not in ‘accordance with the provisions of the law’ for the purposes of Article 14 of the Charter. 108. They further argue that even if Endorois land had been set apart, Kenyan law still requires the compensation of residents of lands that are set apart; that the Kenyan Constitution states that where Trust Land is set apart, the government must ensure: [T]he prompt payment of full compensation to any resident of the land set apart who – (a) under the African customary law for the time being in force and applicable to the land, has a right to occupy any 33 part of the land. 109. Citing Kenyan law, the Complainants argue that the Kenyan Land Acquisition Act outlines 34 factors that should be considered in determining the compensation to be paid, starting with the basic principle that compensation should be based on the market value of the land at the time of the acquisition. Other considerations include: damages to the interested person caused by the removal from the land and other damages including lost earnings, relocation expenses and any diminution of profits of the land. The Land Acquisition Act provides for an additional 15% of the market value to be added to compensate for disturbances. Under Kenyan law if a court finds the amount of compensation 35 to be insufficient, 6% interest per year must be paid on the difference owed to the interested parties. 110. They state that only 170 families of at least 400 families forced to leave Endorois traditional land by the Kenyan Authorities have received some form of monetary assistance. In 1986, 170 families evicted in late 1973 from their homes within the Lake Bogoria Game Reserve, each received around 3,150 Kshs. At the time, this was equivalent to approximately £30. 111. They state that further amounts in compensation for the value of the land lost, together with revenue and employment opportunities from the game reserve, were promised by the Kenyan authorities, but these have never been received by the community. 112. They argue that the Respondent State has itself recognised that the payment of 3,150 Kshs per family amounted only to‘relocation assistance’, and did not constitute full compensation for loss of land. The Complainants argue that international law also lays down strict requirements for 36 compensation in the case of expropriation of property. They argue that the fact that such payment was made some 13 years after the first eviction, and that it does not represent the market value of the land gazetted as Lake Bogoria Game Reserve, means that the Respondent State would not have paid “prompt, full compensation” as required by the Constitution on the setting apart of the Trust Land. Therefore Kenyan law has not been complied with. Moreover, the Complainants argue, the fact that members of the Endorois community accepted the very limited monetary compensation does not mean that they accepted this as full compensation, or indeed that they accepted the loss of their land. They state that even if the Respondent State had formally set apart the Trust Land by way of Gazette Notice, the test of “in accordance with the provisions of law” required by Article 14 of the Charter would not have been satisfied, due to the payment of inadequate compensation.