Mosetlhanyane and others v. Attorney General of Botswana, Civil Appeal No. CACLB-074-10
First Peoples of the Kalahari
This case followed on an earlier decision in Sesana and Others v Attorney-General (2006) AHRLR 183 (BwHC 2006), in which the Court found the relocation of the Basarwa community off of the CKGR unconstitutional. In this case, the Court used a traditional civil and political rights framework to advance socio-economic rights, which are not formally recognized in the Constitution of Botswana. The Court importantly also pointed to important statements in international law recognizing the right to water and particular State obligations in relation to indigenous groups, helping to integrate the socio-economic rights framework into domestic jurisprudence. However, the applicants did not argue, and the Court refused to acknowledge, an affirmative obligation of the State to provide water using its own resources. More broadly, this decision reflects broader protections of indigenous peoples on land marked as game preserves. In the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (2010), the Court noted its concern that the wildlife refuge could be a new and sophisticated method adopted by the owners of private property to "block the original peoples' claim on the territory [...] under the cover of the law and even invoking purposes as pure as the conservation of the environment."