Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

146Security of tenureBox 6.12 Evictions as violations of international lawIn its first ruling that a state party had violated the International Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and CulturalRights (CESCR) famously decided that:The information that had reached members of the Committee concerning the massiveexpulsions of nearly 15,000 families in the course of the last five years, the deplorableconditions in which the families had had to live, and the conditions in which the expulsionshad taken place were deemed sufficiently serious for it to be considered that theguarantees 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 249Instances of forcedeviction … can onlybe justified in themost exceptionalcircumstancesobligations, but, in fact, violations of internationally recognizedhousing rights (see Box 6.12).This decision was followed a year later with a similarpronouncement concerning forced evictions in Panama,which had not only infringed upon the right to adequatehousing, but also on the inhabitants’ rights to privacy andsecurity of the home. Subsequently, the Committee hasdecided that many state parties had, in fact, violated theterms of the ICESCR. In addition, international standardsaddressing the practice of forced evictions grew considerablyduring the 1990s, both in terms of scope, as well as in theconsistent equation of forced evictions with violations ofhuman rights, particularly housing rights. In one of its first ofwhat have become regular pronouncements on forcedevictions, the CESCR has declared that ‘instances of forcedeviction are prima facie incompatible with the requirementsof the Covenant and can only be justified in the most exceptionalcircumstances, and in accordance with the relevantprinciples of international law.’ 34 Similarly, the formerUnited Nations Commission on Human Rights has declaredforced evictions as ‘gross violations of human rights, inparticular the human right to adequate housing’, 35 a perspectiveechoed on numerous occasions by various UnitedNations human rights bodies and other human rights institutions.36 Perhaps the most significant development occurredin 1997, when the CESCR adopted what is now widely seento be the most comprehensive decision yet under internationallaw on forced evictions and human rights. Its GeneralComment No 7 on forced evictions significantly expands theprotection afforded dwellers against eviction, and goesconsiderably further than most previous pronouncements indetailing what governments, landlords and institutions suchas the World Bank must do to preclude forced evictions and,by inference, to prevent violations of human rights (see Box6.13).As noted earlier, a series of international standards,statements and laws has widely condemned forced evictionsas violations of human rights. General Comment No 7 goesone step further in demanding that ‘the State itself mustrefrain from forced evictions and ensure that the law isenforced against its agents or third parties who carry outforced evictions’. Furthermore, it requires countries to‘ensure that legislative and other measures are adequate toprevent and, if appropriate, punish forced evictions carriedout, without appropriate safeguards by private persons orbodies’. 37 In addition to governments, therefore, privatelandlords, developers and international institutions such asthe World Bank and any other third parties are subject to therelevant legal obligations and can anticipate the enforcementof laws against them if they carry out forced evictions. Therules plainly require governments to ensure that protectivelaws are in place domestically and that they punish personsresponsible for forced evictions carried out without properThe State itself mustrefrain from forcedevictions and ensurethat the law isenforced against itsagents or thirdparties who carryout forced evictionsBox 6.13 Are evictions ever legal?This is perhaps the most frequently raised question with respectto housing rights under international law. For example, whentaking a human rights or human security perspective, what isexpected from governments and what is legally allowed whenpeople are squatting on public lands, such as that intended forschools or some other public purpose? In practice, in some cases,proper slum upgrading initiatives cannot be carried out unlesssome dwellings are demolished:• Are governments not entitled (or perhaps even required) toevict people and communities from marginal land or dangerouslocations 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, withinboth the informal and formal housing sectors, anticipate asocial and legal reality that does not envisage the practice offorced 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 ofeviction, it very clearly and strongly discourages the practice andurges states to explore ‘all feasible alternatives’ prior to carryingout any forced evictions, with a view to avoiding or at leastminimizing the use of force or precluding the eviction altogether. Italso provides assurances for people evicted to receive adequatecompensation for any real or personal property affected by aneviction.In paragraph 12 of General Comment No 7, the textoutlines the specific types of evictions that may be tolerated underhuman rights law:Where some evictions may be justifiable, such as in thecase of the persistent non-payment of rent or ofdamage to rented property without any reasonablecause, it is incumbent upon the relevant authorities toensure that those evictions are carried out in a mannerwarranted by a law that is compatible with theCovenant and that all the legal recourses and remediesare available to those affected.