167. Article 8 of the Charter however allows restrictions on the exercise of freedom of religion in the interest of maintaining law and order. Though the Respondent can interfere with the religious practices of the Ogieks to protect public health and maintain law and order, these restrictions must be examined with regard to their necessity and reasonableness. The Court is of the view that, rather than evicting the Ogieks from the Mau Forest, thereby restricting their right to practice their religion , there were other less onerous measures that the Respondent could have put in place that would have ensured their continued enjoyment of this right while ensuring maintenance of law and order and public health . These measures include undertaking sensitisation campaigns to the Ogieks on the requirement to bury their dead in accordance with the requirements of the Public Health Act and collaborating towards maintaining the religious sites and waiving the fees to be paid for the Ogieks to access their religious sites. 168. On the contention that the Ogieks have abandoned their religion and converted to Christianity, the Court notes from the records before it, specifically from the testimony of the Applicant's witnesses that , not all the Ogieks have converted to Christianity. Indeed, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence to support its position that the adoption of Christianity means a total abandonment of the Ogiek traditional religious practices . Even though some members of the Ogieks might have been converted to Christianity, the evidence before this Court show that they still practice their traditional religious rites. Accordingly, the alleged transformation in the way of life of the Ogieks and their manner of worship cannot be said to have entirely eliminated their traditional spiritual values and rituals . 169. From the foregoing, the Court is of the view that given the link between indigenous populations and their land for purposes of practicing their religion , the evictions of the Ogieks from the Mau Forest rendered it impossible for the community to continue its religious practices and is an unjustifiable interference with the freedom of religion of the Ogieks. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent is in violation of Article 8 of the Charter.