125. On the issue of the right to development, the Complainants argue that the Endorois’ right to development has been violated as a result of the Respondent State’s failure to adequately involve the Endorois in the development process and the failure to ensure the continued improvement of the Endorois community’s well-being. 126. The Complainants argue that the Endorois have seen the set of choices and capabilities open to them shrink since their eviction from the game reserve. They argue that due to the lack of access to the lake, the salt licks and their usual pasture, the cattle of the Endorois died in large numbers. Consequently, they were not able to pay their taxes and, as a result, the Kenyan Authorities took away more cattle. 127. They stress the point that the Endorois had no choice but to leave the lake. They argue that this lack of choice for the community directly contradicts the guarantees of the right to development. They state that if the Kenyan authorities had been providing the right to development as promised by the African Charter, the development of the game reserve would have increased the capabilities of the Endorois. 128. Citing the Ogoni Case, para. 46, the Complainants argue that the African Commission has noted the importance of choice to well-being. They state that the African Commission noted that the 41 state must respect rights holders and the “liberty of their action.” They argue that the liberty recognised by the Commission is tantamount to the choice embodied in the right to development. By recognising such liberty, they argue, the African Commission has started to embrace the right to development as a choice. Elaborating further on the right to development, they argue that the same ‘liberty of action’ principle can be applied to the Endorois community in the instant communication. 129. They argue that choice and self-determination also include the ability to dispose of natural resources as a community wishes, thereby requiring a measure of control over the land. They further argue that for the Endorois, the ability to use the salt licks, water, and soil of the Lake Bogoria area has been eliminated, undermining this partner (the Endorois community) of self-determination. In that regard, the Complainants argue, it is clear that development should be understood as an increase in peoples’ well-being, as measured by capacities and choices available. The realisation of the right to development, they say, requires the improvement and increase in capacities and choices. They argue that the Endorois have suffered a loss of well-being through the limitations on their choice and capacities, including effective and meaningful participation in projects that will affect them. 130. Citing the Human Rights Committee (HRC), they argue that the Committee addressed the 42 effectiveness of consultation procedures in Mazurka v. New Zealand . The Complainants argue that the HRC found that the broad consultation process undertaken by New Zealand had effectively provided for the participation of the Maori people in determining fishing rights. The New Zealand authorities had negotiated with Maori representatives and then allowed the resulting Memorandum of 43 Understanding to be debated extensively by Maoris throughout the country. The Complainants argue that the Committee specifically noted that the consultation procedure addressed the cultural and religious significance of fishing to the Maori people, and that the Maori representatives were able to affect the terms of the final settlement. 131. The inadequacy of the consultations undertaken by the Kenyan authorities, the Complainants argue, is underscored by Endorois actions after the creation of the game reserve. The Complainants inform the African Commission that the Endorois believed, and continue to believe even after their eviction, that the game reserve and their pastoralist way of life would not be mutually exclusive and that they would have a right of re-entry into their land. They assert that in failing to understand the reasons for their permanent eviction, many families did not leave the location until 1986. 132. They argue that the course of action left the Endorois feeling disenfranchised from a process of utmost importance to their life as a people. Resentment of the unfairness with which they had been treated inspired some members of the community to try to reclaim Mochongoi Forest in 1974 and 1984, meet with the President to discuss the matter in 1994 and 1995, and protest the actions in peaceful demonstrations. They state that if consultations had been conducted in a manner that effectively involved the Endorois, there would have been no ensuing confusion as to their rights or resentment that their consent had been wrongfully gained.