questions, see below, the section on ‘Gender, minority groups and culture’ (p. 41). Indigenous peoples’ rights in Africa Historic and socio-political circumstances have traditionally played against the establishment of minority/indigenous rights regimes in Africa. However, it should be noted that the ACHPR has recently begun to seriously address the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights in the region. The ACHPR established in 2000 the Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa (AWGIPC) with the task of conducting a preliminary investigation on the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights in this context.375 The Report produced by the AWGIPC, and adopted by the ACHPR in 2003,376 concluded, among others, that indigenous communities do exist in Africa and are characterized by a special attachment to and use of traditional land, as well as experiences of subjugation, marginalization and dispossession.377 At its 45th session in May 2009, the ACHPR also adopted another groundbreaking report on the situation of indigenous peoples in Africa resulting from a three-year research focusing on 24 African countries carried out by the ILO and the ACHPR in collaboration with the Centre for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria.378 The conclusions of this report highlight that ‘it is an undeniable reality that indigenous peoples exist in many African States. These groups cover a diversity of ethnicities, life-styles, cultures and languages.’ Although ‘the overriding picture is one of government neglect and negation of the plight of these peoples’, the report underscores that ‘significant opportunities do exist for the protection of these peoples within existing legal frameworks in a number of African countries’. In fact, the African regional framework offers important entry points for future litigation on indigenous peoples. The recent ruling of the ACHPR on the Endorois case stands as a milestone in this regard.379 Unique among regional human rights treaties, the AfrCH includes a number of Articles (19–24) which expressly recognize rights to peoples. As highlighted by the AWGIPC, these Articles provide crucial protection for the rights to land and natural resources of indigenous communities.380 More precisely, the AWGIPC stressed the importance of Article 20 on the right to existence and selfdetermination, Article 21 on the right to natural resources and property, and Article 22 on the right to economic, social and cultural development. Early case law had already evidenced the potential of the AfrCH to protect minority groups in general. Katangese Peoples’ Congress v Zaire,381 referred to Article 20 AfrCH and consisted in a 38 request by the President of the Katangese Peoples’ Congress to recognize the Katangese Peoples’ Congress as a liberation movement entitled to support in the achievement of independence for Katanga, and to further recognize the legitimate independence of Katanga from Zaire. Although the claim was not successful, the ACHPR held that the right to self-determination established by Article 20 does not apply exclusively to the population of a state as a whole, but also to minorities residing within the territory of a state. In The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria (so-called Ogoni case),382 it was alleged, among others, that the government of Nigeria had caused environmental degradation and health problems in Ogoniland due to its involvement in oil production through a state oil company in the area. The ACHPR crucially found that the Nigerian government violated, inter alia, the right of the Ogoni people to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources (Article 21) and their right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development (Article 24).383 Also, it should be recalled that in its recent Advisory Opinion on the UNDRIP, 384 the ACHPR dismissed, in particular, the claim advanced by many African states that the recognition of land rights to indigenous communities would be impracticable because ‘the control of land and natural resources is the obligation of the State’.385 Instead, the ACHPR referred to Article 21 AfrCH to emphasize not only that such rights exist and are compatible with the constitutional framework of each country but also that they are expressly recognized by the AfrCH.386 Case study: Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and MRG on behalf of the Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya In the above-mentioned Endorois case, the ACHPR indeed applied the provisions of the AfrCH to respond to indigenous peoples’ claims regarding their traditional lands. It found that Kenya had violated Articles 1, 8 (religion), 14 (property), 17 (culture), 21 (natural resources) and 22 (development) of the AfrCH to the detriment of the Endorois community, who had been evicted from their ancestral lands in connection with the creation of a game reserve around Lake Bogoria. Drawing heavily on international and regional instruments and case law to examine the allegations and decide the claims of the Endorois community, the ACHPR has established some fundamental principles regarding the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights under the AfrCH, in particular vis-à-vis their traditional lands, while touching upon further issues, such as consultation and free, prior and informed MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE