lost their distinctive cultural identity , the Court reiterates that the Respondent has not sufficiently demonstrated that this al leged shift and transformation in the lifestyle of the Ogieks has entire ly eliminated their cultural distinctiveness. In this vein, the Court stresses that stagnation or the existence of a static way of life is not a defining element of cu lture or cultural distinctiveness . It is natural that some aspects of indigenous populations ' culture such as a certain way of dressing or group symbols could change over time. Yet , the values , mostly, the invisible traditional values embedded in their self-identification and shared mentality often remain unchanged . 186. In so far as the Ogiek population is concerned, the testimony tendered by Mrs. Mary Jepkemei, a member of the Ogiek Community, attests that the Ogieks still have their traditional values and cultural ceremonies which make them distinct from other similar groups. In addition, the Court notes that, to some extent, some of the alleged changes in the way the Ogieks used to live in the past are caused by the restrictions put in place by the Respondent itself on their right to access their land and natural environment. 56 187. With respect to the second contention that the eviction measures were in the public interest of preserving the natural environment of the Mau Forest Complex, the Court first notes that Article 17 of the Charter does not provide exceptions to the right to culture. Any restrictions to the right to culture shall accordingly be dealt with in accordance with Article 27 of the Charter, which stipulates that: "1. Every individual shall have duties towards his family and society, the State and other legally recognised communities and the international community. 2. The rights and freedoms of each individual shall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest." 188. In the instant case, the restriction of the cultural rights of the Ogiek population to preserve the natural environment of the Mau Forest Complex may in principle be justified 56 On the same, see IACtHR, Case of the Sawhoy amaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, Judgment of 29 March 29 2006 (Merits, Reparations and Costs) paragraphs 73(3) to 73(5). 56 ) / I