A/HRC/28/65 mechanisms. While the Act has received criticism, particularly owing to its failure to address the nutritional aspect, and for placing too much emphasis on public distribution 23 without tackling the root causes of poverty and hunger, the Special Rapporteur commends Indian efforts to address chronic malnutrition, and encourages India to work with relevant stakeholders to tackle any potential gaps that may prevent this innovative approach from achieving its full potential C. Africa 23. The following examples illustrate the positive role played by regional human rights mechanisms. In the case Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, the Endorois, a primarily pastoralist indigenous community, were removed from their lands by the Government of Kenya to establish a wildlife reserve. The African Commission found Kenya to have violated articles 8, 14, 17, 21 and 22 of the African Charter. The Commission noted that, as a consequence of its removal, the community had been “relegated to semi-arid land”, which was unsuitable for pastoralism. The ability to graze animals, a key means of subsistence for the community, had become impossible as a result of loss of their land and this threatened the community’s survival. 24 24. In its case SERAC v. Nigeria, the African Commission held that the treatment by Nigeria of the Ogoni indigenous community violated the right to food implied in the African Charter. In their statement to the African Commission, the NGOs submitting the claim contended that: “the Nigerian government ... destroyed and threatened Ogoni food sources through a variety of means. The government ... participated in irresponsible oil development that poisoned much of the soil and water upon which Ogoni farming and fishing depended. In their raids on villages, Nigerian security forces have destroyed crops and killed farm animals. The security forces have created a state of terror and insecurity that ... made it impossible for many Ogoni villagers to return to their fields and animals. The destruction of farm lands, rivers, crops and animals created malnutrition and starvation among certain Ogoni communities.”25 D. Europe 25. While on the whole European countries have been more reluctant to accept the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, there have been some significant cases. For example, in the 2012 German Federal Constitutional Court judgment 1 BvL 10/10, the court ruled on whether cash benefits for asylum seekers provided by the Asylum Seekers Benefit Act were compatible with its Constitution. The court relied on earlier decisions to reiterate that the State is under an obligation to ensure a “dignified minimum existence”, defined as a “comprehensive fundamental rights guarantee” which includes access to food, clothing, household items, housing, heating, hygiene health and social assistance to persons in need. The benefits awarded to the asylum seekers under the law in question were deemed insufficient to guarantee a dignified minimum existence. The court also reaffirmed that benefits must be calculated on the basis of “real and actual needs” and thus be measured realistically. The court noted that the benefits prescribed under the Asylum Seekers Benefit Act had not increased since 1993, even though the cost of living in Germany had risen by 23 24 25 8 Ibid., p. 9. See FAO, Legal developments in the progressive realization of the right to food (2014). See ibid.