beneficial title, but denied them actual title. The African Commission further agrees that though for a decade they were able to exercise their traditional rights without restriction, the trust land system has proved inadequate to protect their rights. 200. The African Commission also notes the views expressed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which has provided a legal test for forced removal from lands which is traditionally claimed by a group of people as their property. In its ‘General Comment No. 4’ it states that “instances of forced eviction are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant and can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances, and in accordance with the relevant principles of 103 international law.” This view has also been reaffirmed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which states that forced evictions are a gross violations of human rights, and in particular the 104 right to adequate housing. The African Commission also notes General Comment No. 7 requiring States Parties, prior to carrying out any evictions, to explore all feasible alternatives in consultation 105 with affected persons, with a view to avoiding, or at least minimizing, the need to use force. 201. The African Commission is also inspired by the European Commission of Human Rights. Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention states: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his [or her] possessions. No one shall be deprived of his [or her] possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions 106 provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. 202. The African Commission also refers to Akdivar and Others v. Turkey. The European Court held that forced evictions constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention. Akdivar and Others involved the destruction of housing in the context of the ongoing conflict between the Government of Turkey and Kurdish separatist forces. The petitioners were forcibly evicted from their properties, which were subsequently set on fire and destroyed. It was unclear which party to the conflict was responsible. Nonetheless, the European Court held that the Government of Turkey violated both Article 8 of the European Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention because it has a duty toboth respect and protect the rights enshrined in the European Convention and its Protocols. 203. In the instant case, the Respondent State sets out the conditions when Trust Land is set apart 107 for whatever purpose. 204. The African Commission notes that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, officially sanctioned by the African Commission through its 2007 Advisory Opinion, deals extensively with land rights. The jurisprudence under international law bestows the right of ownership rather than mere access. The African Commission notes that if international law were to grant access only, indigenous peoples would remain vulnerable to further violations/dispossession by the State or third parties. Ownership ensures that indigenous peoples can engage with the state and third parties as 108 active stakeholders rather than as passive beneficiaries. 205. The Inter-American Court jurisprudence also makes it clear that mere access or de facto ownership of land is not compatible with principles of international law. Only de jure ownership 109 can guarantee indigenous peoples’ effective protection. 206. In the Saramaka case, the Court held that the State’s legal framework merely grants the members of the Saramaka people a privilege to use land, which does not guarantee the right to effectively control their territory without outside interference. The Court held that, rather than a privilege to use the land, which can be taken away by the State or trumped by real property rights of third parties, members of indigenous and tribal peoples must obtain title to their territory in order to guarantee its permanent use and enjoyment. This title must be recognised and respected not only in practice but also in law in order to ensure its legal certainty. In order to obtain such title, the territory traditionally used and occupied by the members of the Saramaka people must first be delimited and demarcated, in consultation with such people and other neighbouring peoples. The situation of the Endorois is not different. The Respondent State simply wants to grant them privileges such as restricted access to ceremonial sites. This, in the opinion of the Commission, falls below internationally recognised norms. The Respondent State must grant title to their territory in order to guarantee its permanent use and enjoyment. 207. The African Commission notes that that Articles 26 and 27 establishes that: