On the United States department of state website, the country reports on human rights practices highlights last year's reports on the way Botswana handled the High Court ruling. It lists the problems that: "the government's continued narrow interpretation of a December 2006 High Court ruling resulted in the majority of San originally relocated from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) being prohibited from returning to or hunting in the CKGR".
The website further states that "while the government respected the December 2006 High Court ruling, on a suit filed by 189 San regarding their forced relocation, it continued to interpret the ruling to allow only the 189 actual applicants and their spouses and minor children, rather than to all San affected by the relocations to return to the CKGR. "The court ruled that the applicants were entitled to return to the CKGR without entry permits and to be issued permits to hunt in designated wildlife management areas, which are not located in the CKGR. The court also ruled that the government was not obligated to resume providing services within the CKGR, and the government did not reopen water wells in the CKGR during the year. Many of the San and their supporters continued to object to the government's narrow interpretation of this ruling". However, the spokesperson from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Clifford Maribe, said it is not true that the US report condemned Botswana. "The US made an observation, which, in the view of the Government of Botswana is not supported by the evidence on the ground," he said. He said that the High Court clearly pronounced itself on who the beneficiaries are in the statement from Justice Maruping Dibotelo when he stated that: "It is important to identify who the applicants are so that the outcome of this action binds only those persons...One hundred and eighty-nine applicants authorised Attorneys Boko, Motlhala and Ketshabile to represent them in this action and it is those applicants whose names appear in the Table A annexed to the judgment who are parties to this action". Maribe said that the government's interpretation is consistent with the High Court ruling and it is not narrow as it is even extended to the thirty people who were not covered by the High Court order.
