A/HRC/36/56 C. Regional mechanisms 32. In the past 10 years, indigenous peoples have availed themselves of the regional human rights bodies, such as the African and inter-American human rights systems, to develop and interpret rights, including by citing the Declaration. The cases below confirm that indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands, territories and resources, as well as the norm of free prior and informed consent, are part of the corpus of binding international human rights law. This is also demonstrated by the citation of human rights law in national case law. It is disappointing that such persuasive jurisprudence remains poorly implemented. 33. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights are leading the way on implementing the Declaration in Africa. To that end, they have made landmark decisions on the rights of indigenous peoples, especially in relation to their cultural rights and their rights to lands, territories and resources. 34. Two leading cases from the African system on land rights are worthy of mention. In the case of the Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya 33 of 2 February 2010, the African Commission declared that the expulsion of the Endorois from their ancestral lands violated numerous human rights of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, including the right to property, culture, disposal of wealth and natural resources. It ordered Kenya to restore the Endorois to their historic land and to compensate them. That was the first time that African indigenous peoples’ rights over traditionally owned land had been legally recognized and the first ruling of an international tribunal on a violation of the right to development. In its judgment, the African Commission drew on articles 8 (2) (b), 10 and 25-27 of the Declaration, as well as the Saramaka case from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (see para. 39 below). 35. In the case of African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (the Ogiek case) of 26 May 2017,34 which also related to expulsions, the Court found similar violations against Kenya as in the Endorois case.35 That was one of the first cases of the Court and its first decision on the rights of indigenous peoples. In its judgment, the Court drew on articles 8 and 26 of the Declaration and general comment No. 21 (2009) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life. Those cases should contribute to a better understanding and greater acceptance of indigenous rights in Africa and be an incentive to all States to involve indigenous peoples in the development process. 36. Under their reporting procedures, both the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have advised Kenya to implement the decision in the Endorois case and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recently noted its concern in response to reports of ongoing forced evictions of the Ogiek peoples.36 This interplay between the regional and international human rights bodies demonstrates the positive effect that such cooperation can have on the coherence and consistency of international human rights law for the benefit of indigenous peoples. 37. While it may be a little early to expect the Ogiek case to be implemented, it is unfortunate that, after more than seven years, the Endorois case remains unimplemented. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is playing its part in trying to ensure implementation of the cases and organized a workshop in Nakuru, Kenya, in August 2016, with the senior human rights adviser in Kenya to enhance dialogue between all stakeholders. At the meeting, participants discussed a co-management 33 34 35 36 10 See www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/2010_africa_commission_ruling_0.pdf. See http://en.african-court.org/images/Cases/Judgment/Application%20006-2012%20%20African%20Commission%20on%20Human%20and%20Peoples’%20Rights%20v.%20the%20R epublic%20of%20Kenya..pdf. Despite an allegation relating to the right to life, the Court found no violation of the requisite article, (art. 4). See CERD/C/KEN/CO/1-4, CERD/C/KEN/CO/5-7 and E/C.12/KEN/CO/2-5.