;HP? ACHPR ,' b:W:Wl ., African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 82. The Complainants submitted that the rights conferred by Articles 20(1), 21(1), 22(1)and 24 of the African Charter are not qualified and that the principle of selfdetermination is a common thread that connects all the aforementioned Articles of the African Charter. They also noted that none of these Articles was subject to the proviso attached to the right to property contained in Article 14 of the African Charter, which states that property may be encroached upon "in the interests of public need or in the general interest of the community." 83. The Complainants relied on Article 10 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action supported by the Respondent and 170 other States, which states that: "While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights." They also submitted that not even the desire to increase food security can trump human rights as affirmed by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation.v 84. As such, the Complainants submitted that the issue for the Commission's determination is not whether the Complainants will "benefit" from Gibe III or Kuraz or whether their rights can be encroached upon in the general interest of the community, but rather whether in its rush to complete these projects, the Respondent State had acted in breach of Articles 20(1), 21(1), 22(1) and/ or 24 of the African Charter. 85. The Complainants submitted that two deep-rooted attitudes of the Respondent State have led to the breach of each of these Articles of the African Charter: Firstly, the Respondent's apparent indifference to the rule of law. They submitted that the Respondent State had repeatedly shown that it was not prepared to allow its procurement and environment impact assessment laws designed to protect people and the environment to stand in the way of "progress".23 86. Second, the Complainants submitted that the Respondent State is determined to get rid of the pastoralist way of life of the Lower Omo people. They submitted that the Respondent considers the Lower Omo people as backward and uncivilised and seeks to transform them into farmers at the earliest opportunity.s+ in contravention of its constitutional obligation to protect pastoralists under the An Orgel) 01 the African ((~~ Union ~",JI 17