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 international law.”103 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 right to adequate housing.104 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 with affected persons, with a view to avoiding, or at least minimizing, the need to use force.105201.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 provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.106202.The African Commission also refers to Akdivar and Others v. Turkey. The European Court held that forced evictions constitute a violation ofArticle 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention. Akdivar and Othersinvolved 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 andArticle 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 for whatever purpose.107204.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 active stakeholders rather than as passive beneficiaries.108205.The Inter-American Court jurisprudence also makes it clear that mere access orde factoownership of land is not compatible with principles of international law. Onlyde jureownership can guarantee indigenous peoples’ effective protection.109206.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: if the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by th[e] Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.234.The Court said that once it has been proved that land restitution rights are still current, the State must take the necessary actions to return them to the members of the indigenous people claiming them. However, as the Court has pointed out, when a State is unable,on objective and reasonable grounds, to adopt measures aimed at returning traditional lands and communal resources to indigenous populations, it must surrender alternative lands of equal extension and quality, which will be chosen by agreement with the members of the indigenous peoples, according to their own consultation and decision procedures.129 This was not the case in respect of the Endorois. The land given them is not of equal quality.235.The reasons of the government in the instant communication are questionable for several reasons including: (a) the contested land is the site of a conservation area, and the Endorois – as the ancestral guardians of that land - are best equipped to maintain its delicate ecosystems; (b) the Endorois are prepared to continue the conservation work begun by the Government; (c) no other community have settled on the land in question, and even if that is the case, the Respondent State is obliged to rectify that situation,130 (d) the land has not been spoliated and is thus inhabitable; (e) continued dispossession and alienation from their ancestral land continues to threaten the cultural survival of the Endorois’ way of life, a consequence which clearly tips the proportionality argument on the side of indigenous peoples under international law.236.It seems also to the African Commission that the amount of £30 as compensation for one’s ancestral home land flies in the face of common sense and fairness.237.The African Commission notes the detailed recommendations regarding compensation payable to displaced or evicted persons developed by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.131These recommendations, which have been considered and applied by the European Court of Human Rights,132 set out the following principles for compensation on loss of land: Displaced persons should be (i) compensated for their losses at full replacement cost prior to the actual move; (ii) assisted with the move and supported during the transition period in the resettlement site; and (iii) assisted in their efforts to improve upon their former living standards, income earning capacity and production levels, or at least to restore them. These recommendations could be followed if the Respondent State is interested in giving a fair compensation to the Endorois.238.Taking all the submissions of both parties, the African Commission agrees with the Complainants that the Property of the Endorois people has been severely encroached upon and continues to be so encroached upon. The encroachment is not proportionate to any public need and is not in accordance with national and international law. Accordingly, the African Commission finds for the Complainants that the Endorois as a distinct people have suffered a violation of Article 14 of the Charter.