administration of public institutions. The issues canvassed in the complaint fall under the mandates of these institutions which can adequately address them. iii. The Respondent states that it has not violated the right to life as set out in Article 4 of the Charter as this right is guaranteed in the Constitution of Kenya. b. Respondent asserts that the Applicants before the Commission did not have the authority nor were they acting on behalf of the Ogiek community which has been actively engaging the Government of Kenya over the issue of preservation of the Mau Forest and that to date no Ogiek has been evicted from the forest. c. The Commission cannot issue adverse orders against the Respondent without hearing the Respondent. d. The matter is pending before the African Commission yet the Commission is seeking substantive orders from the Court on the issue. e. The Commission should have followed the procedure set out in Article 58 of the Charter and drawn the attention of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union to the alleged series of serious or massive violations of human and peoples’ rights. f. That communal ownership of land is recognized under Articles 61(1) and 63 of the Constitution of Kenya. g. Article 11 of the Constitution of Kenya recognizes and guarantees the Ogiek community the rights to culture and the Respondent has an obligation to ensure that the community receives compensation for the loss of their cultures and cultural heritage. h. The Respondent has always guaranteed the Ogiek community the right to practice their religion and culture. APPLICANT’S REPLY 9. In its reply, to the preliminary objections, the Applicant asserts that: