154. The Court considers that it is necessary to make a distinction between the classical meaning of the right to life and the right to decent existence of a group . Article 4 of the Charter relates to the physical rather than the existentia l understanding of the right to life. 1 55 . In the instant case, it is not in dispute between the Parties that that the Mau Forest has, for generations, been the environment in which the Ogiek population has always lived and that their livelihood depends on it. As a hunter-gatherer population, the Ogieks have established their homes, collected and produced food , medicine and ensured other means of survival in the Mau Forest. There is no doubt that their eviction has adversely affected their decent existence in the forest. According to the Applicant , some members of the Ogiek population died at d ifferent times , due to lack of basic necessities such as food , water, shelter, medicine, expos ure to the e lements , and diseases , subsequent to their forced ev ictions . The Court notes however that the Applicant has not estab lished the causal connection between the evictions of the Ogieks by the Respondent and the deaths alleged to have occurred as a result. The Applicant has not adduced evidence to this effect. 156. In view of the above, the Co urt finds that there is no violation of Article 4 of the Charter . E. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Charter Applicant's Submission 157. The Applicant contends that the Ogieks practise a monotheistic religion closely tied to their environment and that their beliefs and spiritual practices are protected by Article 8 of the Charter and constitute a religion under international law. The Applicant refutes the claim that the Ogieks' religious practices are a threat to law and order, which has been the Respondent's basis for the unjustifiable interference with the Ogieks' right to freely practice the ir religion . In this regard , the Applicant