133. They further say that the requirement of prior, informed consent has also been delineated in the case law of the IACmHR. Referring the African Commission to the case of Mary and Carrie Dan v. USA , they argue that the IACmHR noted that convening meetings with the community 14 years after 44 title extinguishment proceedings began constituted neither prior nor effective participation. They state that to have a process of consent that is fully informed “requires at a minimum that all of the members of the community are fully and accurately informed of the nature and consequences of the 45 process and provided with an effective opportunity to participate individually or as collectives.” 134. The Complainants are also of the view that the Respondent State violated the Endorois’ right to development by engaging in coercive and intimidating activity that has abrogated the community’s right to meaningful participation and freely given consent. They state that such coercion has continued to the present day. The Complainants say that Mr Charles Kamuren, the Chair of the Endorois Welfare Council, had informed the African Commission of details of threats and harassment he and his family and other members of the community have received, especially when they objected to the issue of the granting of mining concessions. 135. The Complainants further argue that the Endorois have been excluded from participating or sharing in the benefits of development. They argue that the Respondent State did not embrace a rights-based approach to economic growth, which insists on development in a manner consistent with, and instrumental to, the realisation of human rights and the right to development through adequate and prior consultation. They assert that the Endorois’ development as a people has suffered economically, socially and culturally. They further conclude that the Endorois community suffered a violation of Article 22 of the Charter. Respondent State Submissions on Merits 136. In response to the brief submitted by the Complainants on the Merits including the amicus curiae Brief by COHRE, the Respondent State, the Republic of Kenya, submitted its reply on the merits of the communication to the African Commission. 137. The arguments below are the submissions of the Respondent State, taking into consideration th their oral testimony at the 40 Ordinary Session of the African Commission, all their written submissions, including letters, supporting affidavits, video evidence and the ‘Respondents Submissions and Further Clarifications Arising Out of the Questions by the Commissioners During the Merits Hearing of the Communication’. 138. The Respondent State argues that most of the tribes do not reside in their ancestral lands owing to movements made due to a number of factors, including search for pastures for their livestock; search for arable land to carry out agriculture; relocation by government to facilitate development; creation of irrigation schemes, national parks, game reserves, forests and extraction of natural resources, such as minerals. 139. The Respondent State argues that it has instituted a programme for universal free primary education and an agricultural recovery programme, which aims at increasing the household income of the rural poor, including the Endorois. It states that it has not only initiated programmes for the equitable distribution of budgetary resources, but has also formulated an economic recovery strategy for wealth and employment creation, which seeks to eradicate poverty and secure the economic and social rights of the poor and the marginalised, including the Endorois. 140. The Respondent State argues that the land around the Lake Bogoria area is occupied by the Tugen tribe, which comprises four clans: 141. The Endorois - who have settled around Mangot, Mochongoi and Tangulmbei; The Lebus – who have settled around Koibatek District; The Somor – who live around Maringati, Sacho, Tenges and Kakarnet; and, The Alor – living around Kaborchayo, Paratapwa, Kipsalalar and Buluwesa. 142. The Respondent State argues that all the clans co-exist in one geographical area. It states that it is noteworthy that they all share the same language and names, which means that they have a lot in common. The Respondent State disputes that the Endorois are indeed a community / sub-tribe or clan on their own, and it argues that it is incumbent on the Complainants to prove that the Endorois are distinct from the other Tugen sub-tribe or indeed the larger Kalenjin tribe before they can proceed to make a case before the African Commission.