have been adjudicated and the jurisprudence is growing. The Commission has interpreted the term differently in various cases. One interpretation of the term ‘peoples’ is every individual within a given State. In the case of Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) v Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, the Commission uses the phrases “Congolese peoples’ rights” and “the rights of people” in the DRC interchangeably to mean all affected individuals in the DRC.68 It is a state-centric approach where the ‘peoples’ are equated with the territorial demarcation of the State. This approach also appears to have been followed in the Gambian Coup case where the Commission did not attempt to define the peoples who have the right to “freely determine their political status” under article 20.1. The Commission referred instead to all Gambians who were eligible to vote.69 The Commission has also interpreted the term ‘peoples’ to mean groups of individuals sharing distinct characteristics – including minorities – within the State. In the case of Legal Resources Foundations v Zambia, the Commission found that article 19, equality of all peoples, did not apply because to demonstrate such a violation, the applicants would need to show that “an identifiable group of Zambian citizens by reason of their common ancestry, ethnic origin, language and cultural habits” had been affected adversely.70 In the case of the Katangese Peoples’ Congress v Zaire the Commission had to decide whether the right of the Katangese people to selfdetermination extended to secession. The Commission stated that self-determination could be exercised in various ways including “independence, self-government, local government, federalism, confederalism, unitarism or any other form of relations that accords with the wishes of the people but fully cognisant of other recognized principles such as sovereignty and territorial integrity”.71 In contrast to the UN Human Rights Committee, which has refused to hear cases concerning claims of self-determination,72 the Commission examined the merits but ruled against the Katangese people because of the absence of “concrete evidence of serious violations of human rights to the point that the territorial integrity of Zaire should be called to question and the absence of evidence that the people of Katanga are denied the right to participate in Government”.73 This then leaves open the possibility that a community suffering severe discrimination and human rights abuses may have a claim under the Charter. The Commission does not make a distinction between minorities and indigenous peoples in any of the cases that address the violation of peoples’ rights. This is, again, a contrast to the approach under UN instruments where the term ‘peoples’ has been applied to indigenous groups and not to minorities. In the Katengese Peoples’ Congress case, the Commission did not examine whether the community is indigenous or a minority. The terms ‘minority’ and ‘indigenous’ were not mentioned in the case of Ogoni v Nigeria.74 However, the Commission considered that the Ogoni (an indigenous minority from the Niger Delta) were entitled to the rights accorded to peoples under the Charter and found a violation of the rights of peoples to freely dispose of their natural resources and to a satisfactory environment favourable to their DRC v. Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, Communication 227/1999, 20th Annual Activity Report. 68 Jawara v. The Gambia (Gambian Coup Case), Communications 147/95 and 149/96, 13th Annual Activity Report. 69 Legal Resources Foundation v. Zambia, Communication 211/98, 14th Annual Activity Report, paragraph 73. 70 Congrès de Peuple Katangais v. Zaire, Communication 75/92, 8th Annual Activity Report, paragraph 4. 71 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 23 on Article 27 (The Rights of Minorities), paragraph 3.1. 72 Congrès de Peuple Katangais v. Zaire, Communication 75/92, 8th Annual Activity Report, paragraph 6. 73 The Social and Economic Rights Action Centre for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication 155/96, (2001). 74 Chapter 12: Regional Issues, Standards and Mechanisms 163