demonstrated how it has failed in undertaking development initiatives for the benefit of the Ogieks or how they have been discriminated against and excluded in the process of conducting development initiatives. 206. The Respondent maintains that its development agenda is guided both by the will and determination of its government and by its laws. On the consultative process leading to development initiatives in the Mau Forest, the Respondent argues that consultation can be achieved in diverse ways . It argues that in the present case, as provided under Article 1 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, consultations were held with the Ogieks' democratically elected area representatives and that the State has established several participatory task forces to review the legal framework and reports while taking into account the views of the public. applicable to the situation Finally, the Respondent argues that its development agenda, that is, Vision 2030, its various budget statements and Article 10(2) of its Constitution , provide that the fundamental criteria for governance include equity, participation , accountability and transparency. The Respondent avers that, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to demonstrate that all these instruments are at variance with development, more precisely that of the Ogiek community. The Court's Assessment 207. Article 22 of the Charter provides that: "1 . All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind. 2. States shall have the duty, individually or collectively, to ensure the exercise of the right to development." 208. The Court reiterates its view above with respect to Article 21 of the Charter that the term "peoples" in the Charter comprises all populations as a constitutive element of a State . These populations are entitled to social , economic and cultural development being part of the peoples of a State . Accordingly , the Ogiek