8. In its response to the application, on the merits, the Respondent submits as follows: a. It reiterates the contents of its Response to the Application before the Commission, inter alia: I. The Respondent makes a background statement outlining the actions by Colonial and Post-Independence Governments to protect the Mau Forest Complex in view of its importance to the country’s and region’s ecology, biodiversity, resources and economic activities. The statement outlines the Ogiek’s conversion from hunter-gathering activities to livestock rearing and subsistence farming activities and that in view of this, in October 2001; the Government of Kenya excised 61,586 hectares of land in the Forest Complex, mainly for the resettlement of the Ogiek. However, that this opened the area up for encroachment by other ethnic groups and this resulted in massive deforestation of the forest. In cognizance of the effects of such deforestation, in August 2-008, the Government of Kenya formed the Task Force on the Conservation of the Mau Forest Complex (Mau Task Force) to make recommendations on rehabilitation of the forest. The Task Force’s recommendations were adopted by Parliament on 15 September 2009. It made recommendations on the relocation and awarding of tile to, inter alia, the Ogiek. The Government has been working with representatives of the Ogiek to implement the recommendations and that it acknowledges the indigenous right of the Ogiek to their land. II. The Respondent submits that the communication does not meet the admissibility criteria because of: a) Lack of Standing i. The author of the communication is not the aggrieved party in the complaint. There is no list of names of aggrieved members of the Ogiek community