143. The Respondent State maintains that following the Declaration of the Lake Bogoria Game Reserve, the government embarked on a re-settlement exercise, culminating in the resettlement of the majority of the Endorois in the Mochongoi settlement scheme. It argues that this was over and above the compensation paid to the Endorois after their ancestral land around lake was gazetted. It further states that there is no such thing as Mochongoi Forest in Kenya and the only forest in the area is Ol Arabel Forest. Decision on Merits 144. The present communication alleges that the Respondent State has violated the human rights of the Endorois community, an indigenous people, by forcibly removing them from their ancestral land, the failure to adequately compensate them for the loss of their property, the disruption of the community's pastoral enterprise and violations of the right to practice their religion and culture, as well as the overall process of development of the Endorois people. 145. Before addressing the articles alleged to have been violated, the Respondent State has requested the African Commission to determine whether the Endorois can be recognised as a ‘community’ / sub-tribe or clan on their own. The Respondent State disputes that the Endorois are a distinct community in need of special protection. The Respondent State argues that the Complainants need to prove this distinction from the Tugen sub-tribe or indeed the larger Kalenjin tribe. The immediate questions that the African Commission needs to address itself to are: 146. Are the Endorois a distinct community? Are they indigenous peoples and thereby needing special protection? If they are a distinct community, what makes them different from the Tugen subtribe or indeed the larger Kalenjin tribe? 147. Before responding to the above questions, the African Commission notes that the concepts 46 of “peoples” and “indigenous peoples / communities” are contested terms. As far as “indigenous peoples” are concerned, there is no universal and unambiguous definition of the concept, since no single accepted definition captures the diversity of indigenous cultures, histories and current circumstances. The relationships between indigenous peoples and dominant or mainstream groups in society vary from country to country. The same is true of the concept of “peoples.” The African Commission is thus aware of the political connotation that these concepts carry. Those controversies led the drafters of the African Charter to deliberately refrain from proposing any definitions for the 47 notion of “people(s).” In its Report of the Working Group of Experts on Indigenous 48 Populations/Communities, the African Commission describes its dilemma of defining the concept of “peoples”in the following terms: Despite its mandate to interpret all provisions of the African Charter as per Article 45.3, the African Commission initially shied away from interpreting the concept of ‘peoples’. The African Charter itself does not define the concept. Initially the African Commission did not feel at ease in developing rights where there was little concrete international jurisprudence. The ICCPR and the ICESR do not define ‘peoples.’ It is evident that the drafters of the African Charter intended to distinguish between the traditional individual rights where the sections preceding Article 17 make reference to “every individual.” Article 18 serves as a break by referring to the family. Articles 19 to 24 make specific reference to “all peoples.” 148. The African Commission, nevertheless, notes that while the terms ‘peoples’ and ‘indigenous community’ arouse emotive debates, some marginalised and vulnerable groups in Africa are suffering from particular problems. It is aware that many of these groups have not been accommodated by dominating development paradigms and in many cases they are being victimised by mainstream development policies and thinking and their basic human rights violated. The African Commission is also aware that indigenous peoples have, due to past and ongoing processes, become marginalised in their own country and they need recognition and protection of their basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. 149. The African Commission also notes that normatively, the African Charter is an innovative and unique human rights document compared to other regional human rights instruments, in placing 49 special emphasis on the rights of “peoples.” It substantially departs from the narrow formulations of other regional and universal human rights instruments by weaving a tapestry which includes the