65. The Respondent State also states that the Court opined that the application did not fall under Section 84 (Enforcement of Constitutional Rights) since the application did not plead any violations or likelihood of violations of their rights under Sections 70 – 83 of the Constitution. 66. It further argues that the communication irregularly came before the African Commission as the applicants did not exhaust local remedies regarding the alleged violations. This is because: 1. The Complainants did not plead that their rights had been contravened or likely to be contravened by the High Court Misc. Civil Case 183 of 2002. It states that the issue of alleged violations of any of the rights claimed under the present communication has, therefore, not been addressed by the local courts. This means that the African Commission will be acting as a court of first instance. The Respondent State argues that the applicants should, therefore, be asked to exhaust local remedies before approaching the African Commission. 2. The Complainants did not pursue other administrative remedies available to them. The Respondent State argues that the allegations that the Kenyan legal system has no adequate remedies to address the case of the Endorois are untrue and unsubstantiated. It argues that in matters of human rights the Kenya High Court has been willing to apply international human rights instruments to protect the rights of the individual. 67. The Respondent State further says that the Kenyan legal system has a very comprehensive description of property rights, and provides for the protection of all forms of property in the Constitution. It argues that while various international human rights instruments, including the African Charter, recognise the right to property, these instruments have a minimalist approach and do not satisfy the kind of property protected. The Respondent State asserts that the Kenyan legal system goes further than provided for in international human rights instruments. 68. The Respondent State further states that land as property is recognised under the Kenyan legal system and various methods of ownership are recognised and protected. These include private ownership (for natural and artificial persons), communal ownership either through the Land (Group Representatives) Act for adjudicated land, which is also called the Group Ranches or the Trust Lands managed by the County Council, within whose area of jurisdiction it is situated for the benefit of the persons ordinarily resident on that land. The State avers that the Land Group Act gives effect to such right of ownership, interests or other benefits of the land as may be available, under African customary law. 69. The Respondent State concludes that Trust Lands are established under the Constitution of Kenya and administered under an Act of Parliament and that the Constitution provides that Trust Land may be alienated through: • • Registration to another person other than the County Council; An Act of Parliament providing for the County Council to set apart an area of Trust Land. 70. Rule 118(2) of the African Commission’s Rules of Procedure states that: If the Commission has declared a communication inadmissible under the Charter, it may reconsider this decision at a later date if it receives a request for reconsideration. The African Commission notes the arguments advanced by the Respondent State to reopen its decision on admissibility. However, after careful consideration of the Respondent State’s arguments, the African Commission is not convinced that it should reopen arguments on the admissibility of the communication. It therefore declines the Respondent State’s request. Merits Complainants’ Submission on the Merits