A/HRC/31/59/Add.1 Government to refuse to issue special game licences to indigenous peoples in the reserve.44 Another judicial victory for the residents of the reserve was the January 2011 decision of the Court of Appeal that the applicants in the case did not need Government authorization to use the water at the Mothomelo borehole and that they could re-open the borehole and open new wells in the vicinity. 69. For a decade, various United Nations human rights bodies have expressed concern about the Government’s lack of implementation of the judgement in the Sesana case, as the Government only allowed the 243 applicants and their family members to return to the reserve without the need for a re-entry permit, while those who lived in the reserve at the time of relocation, but who were not applicants in the case had to obtain temporary onemonth entry permits.45 Today, concerns persist regarding the restrictive interpretation of the right of offspring to remain on the reserve upon attaining majority at 18 years of age. There are fears that once the elders have passed away, nobody will be entitled to live in the reserve. The Special Rapporteur was informed by government representatives that permits were not difficult to obtain and that they are issued to monitor the number of people in the reserve. People who have been sentenced for poaching may also be stopped at the gate. However, it seems that the fears have been expressed by people who do not understand the policy imposed, and who consider it another overly restrictive interpretation of the High Court decision. In general, it is difficult to understand why such regressive measures have been adopted towards the San, who represent small numbers of people in a huge area and who previously had their settlement, school and waterholes within the reserve. 70. The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular, recommended that the Government facilitate the return of all those who were removed from the reserve who wish to return and to allow them to engage in subsistence hunting and gathering in accordance with traditional practices, as well as to provide them with the same government services available to people of Botswana elsewhere in the country, including most immediately, access to water.46 He sent a letter to the Government expressing his concern about allegations that residents in the Reserve had been criminally prosecuted, arrested, harassed, beaten and intimidated by the police and park officials for engaging in their traditional subsistence hunting and gathering activities.47 During her visit, the Special Rapporteur heard allegations of further occurrences of torture and ill-treatment of visiting family members in the reserve, as recently as 2014. 71. The residents, estimated at about 260, in the reserve wish to continue their own cultural practices and ways of life. As the residents in the reserve boycotted the 2001 census, some people believe that about 500 people currently live in the reserve. The Special Rapporteur noted that a Governmental programme provides transportation to children from the settlements to a boarding school outside the reserve. 72. Following the 2006 High Court decision in the Sesana case, the Government undertook a commitment to negotiate with the residents of the reserve, in consultation with all stakeholders. On 12 June 2008, a delegation, led by Roy Sesana, met the President of Botswana. That meeting resulted in the creation of a negotiating team consisting of 44 45 46 47 Ibid., para. 55.5 and .6. See A/HRC/15/37/Add.2, chap. V; and CERD/C/BWA/CO/16, para. 12. See A/HRC/15/37/Add.2, para. 97. See Letter from the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples to the Permanent Mission of Botswana, dated 12 February 2013 (AL Indigenous (2001-8) BWA 1/2013). 17