as indigenous people , with the right to determining development priorities and strategies and exercising their right to be active ly involved in developing economic and social programmes affecting them and , as far as possible, to administering such programmes through their own institutions. They contend that failure on the part of the Respondent to give effect to these facets of the right to development, constitutes a violation of Artic le 22 of the Charter. 203 . With regard to Article 1 0(2) of the Respondent 's Constitution , its Vision 2030 and its budget statements being proof of development for the Ogieks, the Applicant submits that , it is not a matter of whether or not these instruments provide for the right to development , but rather whether the Respondent has disc harged its obligation to protect the Ogieks ' right to development . According to the Applicant, this would be by establishing a framework which provides for the realisation of this right in its procedural and substantive processes , including consultation and participation. 204. Furthermore , the Applicant contends that despite the provisions of Article 1(2) of the Respondent's Constitution which demonstrates its willingness to consu lt on issues of development, the Respondent has failed to state how many the representatives of the Ogieks sit in any of the three or four tier electoral structures in the Respondent, that is , the local government, County legislative bodies, Parliament and Senate, or in any government decision making capacity. Respondent's Submission 205. The Respondent argues that it has not violated the right to development of the Ogieks as alleged by the Applicant. It argues that the Applicant has to show specific instances where development has taken place without the involvement of members of the Ogiek Community, or where development has not taken place at all, or where members of the Ogiek Community have been discriminated against in enjoying the fruits of development. The Respondent submits that the Applicant has not 1