Footnotes 1. The Endorois have sometimes been classified as a sub-tribe of the Tugen tribe of the Kalenjin group. Under the 1999 census, the Endorois were counted as part of the Kalenjin group, made up of the Nandi, Kipsigis, Keiro, Tugen and Marakwet among others. 2. William Yatich Sitetalia, William Arap Ngasia et al. v. Baringo Country Council, High Court Judgment of th 19 April 2002, Civil Case No. 183 of 2000, p. 6. 3. Depending on the context, Kenyan authorities and Respondent State are used in this text interchangeably to mean the Government of Kenya. 4. See paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this communication, where the Complainants advance arguments to prove ownership of their land. 5. As above, see paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. 6. Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, comm. No. 155/96, (2001), para. 40. 7. Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v. Zaire, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, comm. No. 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93 (1995), para. 45. 8. See World Wildlife Federation Report, p. 18, para. 2.2.7. 9. Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, (1999) African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, comm No. 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93 (hereinafter Amnesty International v. Sudan ). 10. See Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 (1994), Article 13 11. Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Alberto Baron Guttlein and Rodolfo Izal Elorz/Mexico, (1999) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 49/99, Case 11.610. 12. Dianna Ortiz v. Guatemala , (1997) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report 31/96, Case No. 10.526. 13. Ibid. 14. World Wildlife Federation, Lake Bogoria National Reserve Draft Management Plan, July 2004. 15. Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 (1994), Article 13 16. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, comm. No. 212/98 (1999). 17. Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts, submitted in accordance with the “Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa”, adopted by the African Commission on Human th and Peoples’ Rights at its 28 Ordinary Session (2003). 18. [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/AwasTingnicase.html]The Awas Tingni Case (2001)][/url], para. 140(b) and 151 . 19. Ibid at para. 148 . 20. See Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria, United Kingdom Privy Council, 2 AC 399, (1921). 21. Calder et al v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, Supreme Court of Canada, 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 (1973). 22. Mabo v. Queensland, High Court of Australia, 107 A.L.R. 1, (1992). 23. Alexkor Ltd v Richtersveld Community, Constitutional Court of South Africa, CCT 19/03, (2003). 24. Op cit, para. 12. 25. Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, (1999), African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Comm Nos. 140/94, 141/94, 145/95, para. 42 (The Constitutional Rights Project Case). th 26. Handyside v. United Kingdom , No. 5493/72 (1976) Series A.24 (7 December), para. 49 . th 27. X & Y v. Argentina, ( 1996) Report No. 38/96, Case 10.506 (15 October), para. 60 . 28. They state that pursuant to Kenyan law, the authorities published Notice 239/1973 in the Kenya Reserve to declare the creation of“Lake Hannington Game Reserve.” Gazette Notice 270/1974 was published to revoke the th earlier notice and changed the name of the game reserve on 12 October 1974: “the area set forth in the schedule hereto to be a Game Reserve known as Lake Bogoria Game Reserve.” th 29. The Complainants state that Section 3(2) of WAPA was subsequently revoked on 13 February 1976 by S.68 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. 30. The Complainants argue that Section 3(20) of WAPA did not allow the Kenyan Minister for Tourism and Wildlife to remove the present occupiers. 31. The Complainants argue that the process of such a ‘setting apart’ of Trust Land under S. 117 or S.118 of the Constitution are laid down by the Kenyan Trust Land Act. They state that publication is required by S. 13(3) and (4) of the Trust Land Act in respect of S.117 of the Constitution , and by S.7(1) and (4) of the Trust Land Act in respect of S.118 of the Constitution . 32. They also argue that recently the area has been referred to as Lake Bogoria National Reserve. Even if there has been a legal change in title, this still would not mean that the Endorois’ trust has been ended under Kenyan law without the “setting aside” . 33. Constitution of the State of Kenya, Section 117(4). 34. Land Acquisition Act, “Principles on which compensation is to be determined” . 35. See Kenya Land Acquisition Act, Part IV, para 29(3). 36. The Complainants argue that in the European Court of Human Rights, for instance, compensation must be fair compensation, and the amount and timing of payment is material to whether a violation of the right to property is found. They cite the case of Katikaridis and Others v. Greece, European Court of Human Rights, Case No.