and community land rights in particular, must be identified and given effect. According to the Applicant , the Forest Act 2005 does not provide for communityowned forests and t he Forest Conservation Bill unfortunately does not provide for the procedure of identifying community-owned forests and does not give effect to community land rights . 116. On the Respondent's claim that other communities s uch as the Kipsigis , Tugen and the Keiyo also lay claim to the Mau Forest, the Applicant submits that the report of the Mau Forest Task Force did not recognise or mention any s uch rights of these other communities and clearly recommended that the Ogieks who were to be settled in the excised areas of the forest had not yet been resettled. 117. While reiterating the Ogieks ' ancestral property rights to the Mau Forest , the Applicant submits that the Respondent did not state whether the evictions were in the public interest as required by Article 14 of the Charter. The Applicant maintains that excisions and allocations made by the Respondent were illegal and done purely to pursue private interests and therefore , are in violation of the Charter . 118. On the Respondent ' s assertion that the Ogieks were not forcefully evicted but regularly consulted before every eviction and that they have been given alternative land , th e Applicant ave rs t h at the N d u ng ' u R e p o r t , 26 t he T rut h, J ust ice a nd Reconciliation Commission Report, the Mau Forest Task Force Report indi cate the contrary . Hence, the Applicant requests that the Respondent is put to strict proof of this assertion. 119. According to the expert witness cal led by the App licant , the Land Act 2012 , i n spired by the Constitution "i s not perfect but is sound ". She submitted that this law has v ery clear provisions that ancestral land and hunter- gatherer 26 lands are community lands ; yet the Constitution Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Illegal/Irregular Allocation of Public Land. 34 A/