r~-·r) 6~L!.EB Human and Peoples' Rights Human R,ghls ou, Collect1ve Respons1bil1ty Limited. The case was filed on behalf of the 4,000 Maasai families, a total population of 35,000 people, who live at Kedong Ranch. 41. The complainants allege that the cases before the Kenya High Court and the Court of Appeal were all decided against the Kitel people and justified the interests of Kedong Ranch Company Limited and, by extension, the State. Despite Kenya's 2010 progressive constitution recognizing a wide range of human and peoples' rights, including the right to dignity, the High Court took a casual approach to the threat of eviction and the implications for victims' rights. 42. The complainants further state that in all these petitions, despite demonstrating the imminent danger of violation of residents' fundamental rights and freedoms, the inviolability of property titles and the rights of vulnerable members of the community, including children, the elderly and women, the courts have shown no willingness to apply the transformative human rights protections, as progressively provided for in the 2010 Constitution, to defend themselves against human rights violations. 43. The complainants further allege that there is a very high probability that the government will carry out evictions in violation of their rights to equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination. In addition, the administration of justice in these cases was deliberately subverted, as detailed in the affidavit of the Kedong leaders and their lawyer. 44. The complainants state that, although they have sought to exhaust domestic remedies, the claimants in this Communication are convinced that the remedies that may exist in the Kenyan legal system are not available to them at all. The complainants are aware that while the Kenyan judiciary has generally been independent, following its decision to annul the results of the presidential election in 2017, the President of Kenya has threatened to "review judicial independence". 45. The complainants further allege that this statement was understood to mean that the executive would seek to reduce judicial independence through a range of tactics, including administrative harassment, budget cuts, and targeted persecution of judicial officials, in order to ensure that the judiciary complies with the executive's dictates. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, since the conservation of the Mau has been presented as a high-priority national project, evictions of the applicants a in the eyes of a compliant judicial system and would be allowed des • and massive violations of victims' rights that they would entail. I z "..., ~ ~ .... I ._ ~ . <, • .q .·R,c~1tlt "Yo ,\f~EET Ot