-7-
Constitution of Namibia, all property or control over property by various public institutions,
including the Government of South West Africa, became vested in, or came under the control, of
the Government of Namibia. The Court further stated:
“In 1976 the Baster Community, through its leaders, made a decision opting for
Self-Government. The community freely decided to transfer its communal land to the
new Government. Clearly it saw advantage in doing so. Then in 1989, the community,
through the political party to which its leaders were affiliated, subscribed to the
Constitution of an independent Namibia. No doubt, once again, the Community saw
advantage in doing so. It wished to be part of the new unified nation which the
Constitution created. .... One aim of the Constitution was to unify a nation previously
divided under the system of apartheid. Fragmented self-governments had no place in the
new constitutional scheme. The years of divide and rule were over.”
10.6 To conclude on this aspect of the complaint, the Committee observes that it is for the
domestic courts to find the facts in the context of, and in accordance with, the interpretation of
domestic laws. On the facts found, if “expropriation” there was, it took place in 1976, or in any
event before the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Namibia on
28 February 1995. As to the related issue of the use of land, the authors have claimed a violation
of article 27 in that a part of the lands traditionally used by members of the Rehoboth community
for the grazing of cattle no longer is in the de facto exclusive use of the members of the
community. Cattle raising is said to be an essential element in the culture of the community. As
the earlier case law by the Committee illustrates, the right of members of a minority to enjoy
their culture under article 27 includes protection to a particular way of life associated with the
use of land resources through economic activities, such as hunting and fishing, especially in the
case of indigenous peoples.4 However, in the present case the Committee is unable to find that
the authors can rely on article 27 to support their claim for exclusive use of the pastoral lands in
question. This conclusion is based on the Committee’s assessment of the relationship between
the authors’ way of life and the lands covered by their claims. Although the link of the Rehoboth
community to the lands in question dates back some 125 years, it is not the result of a
relationship that would have given rise to a distinctive culture. Furthermore, although the
Rehoboth community bears distinctive properties as to the historical forms of self-government,
the authors have failed to demonstrate how these factors would be based on their way of raising
cattle. The Committee therefore finds that there has been no violation of article 27 of the
Covenant in the present case.
10.7 The Committee further considers that the authors have not substantiated any claim under
article 17 that would raise separate issues from their claim under article 27 with regard to their
exclusion from the lands that their community used to own.
10.8. The authors have also claimed that the termination of self-government for their
community and the division of the land into two districts which were themselves amalgamated in
larger regions have split up the Baster community and turned it into a minority with an adverse
impact on the rights under Article 25(a) and (c) of the Covenant. The right under Article 25(a) is
a right to take part in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen
representatives and the right under Article 25(c) is a right to have equal access, on general terms
of equality, to public service in one’s country. These are individual rights. Although it may very