~C."r.Q'" " Q t .:, m:u..lJ/" ACH PR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rigt1tS Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Complainants also submitted that their livestock is their "wealth" within the ambit of Article 21(1) of the African Charter. The Complainants contend that the loss of the annual floods to the Gibe III dam will affect their ability to grow crops that will sustain them for the greater part of the year and deny the people the right to "freely" dispose of their natural resources without their free, prior and informed consent. The Complainants submitted that the Respondent State's proposal to r~lease annual floods will not cure the breach of Article 21(1) of the African Charter. 220. The Complainants also submitted that the loss of the peoples' traditional lands to the Kuraz will also entail the loss of all or most of the Complainants' livestock which previously grazed on them and will have no choice but to sell their cattle. The Complainants contend that even if the Omo River or the lands allocated to sugar were regarded in whole or part as the natural resources of the Respondent State, the denial of access to the River Omo and to lands upon which to graze their cattle will still have violated the Complainants' rights under Article 21(1) of the African Charter because of the manner in which the Respondent State has put its plans into effect. This is because the provision of substituted lands to displaced members of the affected communities, the Complainant submitted, would sedentarise the pastoralist communities and justify a violation of Article 21(1) of the African Charter. 221. The Respondent State submitted that the continuation of the annual floods through midlevel ou tlets installed on the dam by the EEPCO to allow for controlled will support continued flood retreat agriculture for those who wish to pursue that practice. The Respondent State also submitted that the Sugar Corporation did not deprive any of the seven named peoples their wealth or natural resources because the people have welcomed the projects and consider them as gateways to hasten development in the South Omo Zone. 222. The Respondent State submitted that the ancient practice of annual flood retreat agriculture is neither predictable nor provides sustainable food security for the people, issues which the projects are intended to solve. For those in the South Omo Zone who wish to continue flood retreat farming, the government argues that the EEPCO has installed outlets on the Gibe III dam at great cost to allow those farmers much more secure, regulated, and timely flooding occurrences as they continue to transition into more sustainable livelihoods. An Ofjlal1 of lhe AfriGan 6~)) Union 'fuN" 47