Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

146
Security of tenure
Box 6.12 Evictions as violations of international law
In its first ruling that a state party had violated the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (CESCR) famously decided that:
The information that had reached members of the Committee concerning the massive
expulsions of nearly 15,000 families in the course of the last five years, the deplorable
conditions in which the families had had to live, and the conditions in which the expulsions
had taken place were deemed sufficiently serious for it to be considered that the
guarantees in Article 11 of the Covenant had not been respected.
Source: UN Document E/C/12/1990/8,‘Concluding observations to the initial periodic report of the Dominican Republic’,
para 249
Instances of forced
eviction … can only
be justified in the
most exceptional
circumstances
obligations, but, in fact, violations of internationally recognized
housing rights (see Box 6.12).
This decision was followed a year later with a similar
pronouncement concerning forced evictions in Panama,
which had not only infringed upon the right to adequate
housing, but also on the inhabitants’ rights to privacy and
security of the home. Subsequently, the Committee has
decided that many state parties had, in fact, violated the
terms of the ICESCR. In addition, international standards
addressing the practice of forced evictions grew considerably
during the 1990s, both in terms of scope, as well as in the
consistent equation of forced evictions with violations of
human rights, particularly housing rights. In one of its first of
what have become regular pronouncements on forced
evictions, the CESCR has declared that ‘instances of forced
eviction are prima facie incompatible with the requirements
of the Covenant and can only be justified in the most exceptional
circumstances, and in accordance with the relevant
principles of international law.’ 34 Similarly, the former
United Nations Commission on Human Rights has declared
forced evictions as ‘gross violations of human rights, in
particular the human right to adequate housing’, 35 a perspective
echoed on numerous occasions by various United
Nations human rights bodies and other human rights institutions.
36 Perhaps the most significant development occurred
in 1997, when the CESCR adopted what is now widely seen
to be the most comprehensive decision yet under international
law on forced evictions and human rights. Its General
Comment No 7 on forced evictions significantly expands the
protection afforded dwellers against eviction, and goes
considerably further than most previous pronouncements in
detailing what governments, landlords and institutions such
as the World Bank must do to preclude forced evictions and,
by inference, to prevent violations of human rights (see Box
6.13).
As noted earlier, a series of international standards,
statements and laws has widely condemned forced evictions
as violations of human rights. General Comment No 7 goes
one step further in demanding that ‘the State itself must
refrain from forced evictions and ensure that the law is
enforced against its agents or third parties who carry out
forced evictions’. Furthermore, it requires countries to
‘ensure that legislative and other measures are adequate to
prevent and, if appropriate, punish forced evictions carried
out, without appropriate safeguards by private persons or
bodies’. 37 In addition to governments, therefore, private
landlords, developers and international institutions such as
the World Bank and any other third parties are subject to the
relevant legal obligations and can anticipate the enforcement
of laws against them if they carry out forced evictions. The
rules plainly require governments to ensure that protective
laws are in place domestically and that they punish persons
responsible for forced evictions carried out without proper
The State itself must
refrain from forced
evictions and ensure
that the law is
enforced against its
agents or third
parties who carry
out forced evictions
Box 6.13 Are evictions ever legal?
This is perhaps the most frequently raised question with respect
to housing rights under international law. For example, when
taking a human rights or human security perspective, what is
expected from governments and what is legally allowed when
people are squatting on public lands, such as that intended for
schools or some other public purpose? In practice, in some cases,
proper slum upgrading initiatives cannot be carried out unless
some dwellings are demolished:
• Are governments not entitled (or perhaps even required) to
evict people and communities from marginal land or dangerous
locations such as floodplains or landslide-prone hillsides,
all in the interest of public health and safety?
• How far do the rights of governments stretch in this regard?
• To what extent can the urban poor and other dwellers, within
both the informal and formal housing sectors, anticipate a
social and legal reality that does not envisage the practice of
forced evictions?
• When does an eviction become a forced eviction?
General Comment No 7 provides some guidance in this regard.
While it does not ban outright every possible manifestation of
eviction, it very clearly and strongly discourages the practice and
urges states to explore ‘all feasible alternatives’ prior to carrying
out any forced evictions, with a view to avoiding or at least
minimizing the use of force or precluding the eviction altogether. It
also provides assurances for people evicted to receive adequate
compensation for any real or personal property affected by an
eviction.
In paragraph 12 of General Comment No 7, the text
outlines the specific types of evictions that may be tolerated under
human rights law:
Where some evictions may be justifiable, such as in the
case of the persistent non-payment of rent or of
damage to rented property without any reasonable
cause, it is incumbent upon the relevant authorities to
ensure that those evictions are carried out in a manner
warranted by a law that is compatible with the
Covenant and that all the legal recourses and remedies
are available to those affected.