The Purpose of Module 13
The purpose of this module is to clarify
the content and scope of the right to housing.
The module
- presents international, regional and
national standards guaranteeing the right
to housing;
- enumerates the states obligations;
- elaborates on the guarantees provided
under article 11 of the ICESCR as contained
in General Comments 4 and 7 by the CESCR;
and
- considers strategies for ensuring the
enjoyment of the right to housing.
Introduction
Housing forms an indispensable part of ensuring
human dignity.� "Adequate housing"
en�compasses more than just the four walls of
a room and a roof over ones head.� Housing
is essential for normal healthy living.� It
fulfills deep-seated psychological needs for
privacy and personal space; physical needs for
security and protection from inclement weather;
and social needs for basic gathering points
where important relationships are forged and
nurtured.� In many societies, a house also serves
an important function as an economic center
where essential commercial activities are performed.
Despite global recognition of the importance
of housing to human welfare and survival, it
is estimated that over one billion people live
in inadequate housing while over 100 million
peo�ple are homeless. [1] � Governments claim lack of capacity
and resources to implement programs and undertake
reforms aimed at creating the conditions for
expanding access to housing.� The right to adequate
housing therefore provides a unique paradigm
for monitoring the steps taken by states towards
the provision of housing through citizens
demands and insistence upon the fulfillment
of this basic human right.�
Housing as a Human Right-International
and Regional Standards���������
International Standards
The right to adequate housing is founded and
recognized under in�ternational law.� Enunciated
under article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the right to adequate housing
has been codified in other major international
human rights treaties.� Article 11(1) of the
ICESCR provides that "States Parties to
the present Covenant recognize the right of
eve�ryone to an adequate standard of living
for himself and his family, including adequate
. . . housing, and to the continuous improvement
of living conditions."�
The CESCR has issued two General Comments clarifying
the scope and meaning of the right to housing
as enshrined in the Covenant.� The texts of
General Comments 4 and 7 appear on pages 256-66.
Several nonbinding
declarations, resolutions and recommendations
by the UN and its specialized agencies
related to housing as a human right
Declaration on Social Progress
and Development (1969), part II, art.
10
Declaration on the Rights of Disabled
Persons (1975), art. 9
Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements
(1976), section III (8)
International Labour Organization
(ILO) Recommendation No. 115 (1961), principle
2
ILO Recommendation No. 62 Concerning
Older Workers (1980), art. 5(g)
Declaration on the Right to Development
(1986), art. 8(1)
United Nations Sub-Commission on
the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection
of Minorities resolution 1994/8 on "Children
and the Right to Adequate Housing"
adopted 23 August 23 1994
United Nations Commission on Human
Rights resolution 1993/77 on "Forced
Evictions," adopted on 10 March 1993
United Nations Commission on Human
Settlements resolution 14/6 on "The
Human Right to Adequate Housing,"
adopted 5 May 1993
United Nations General Assembly
resolution 42/146 on the "Realization
of the Right to Adequate Housing,"
adopted 7 December 1987, which "reiterates
the need to take, at the national and
international levels, measures to promote
the right of all persons to an adequate
standard of living for themselves and
their families, including adequate housing,
and calls upon all States and international
organizations concerned to pay special
attention to the realization of the right
to adequate housing in carrying out measures
to develop national shelter strategies
and settlement improvement programmes
within the framework of the Global Strategy
for Shelter to the Year 2000."
|
Similar provisions on the right to adequate
housing are contained in the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women, the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, the International Convention on
the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime
of Apartheid, and the Interna�tional Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees.�
Regional Instruments
Several regional human rights instruments also
guarantee to every in�dividual the right to
adequate housing.� Under the Charter of the
Organization of American States (OAS), article
31(k), "Member States agree to dedicate
every effort to achieve . . . adequate housing
for all sectors of the population."� The
European Social Charter, the Euro�pean Convention
on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the
European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant
Workers, the Resolution on Shelter for the Homeless
in the European Community, and the Final Act
of Helsinki all contain express provisions and
refer�ences to the right to adequate housing.�
The African Charter on Human and Peoples
Rights makes no specific mention of the right
to adequate housing.� However, other provisions
such as the right to life (art. 4) and the right
to physical and mental health (art. 16) arguably
provide a basis for the assertion of the right
to housing.
National Legal Recognition
Many national constitutions and municipal laws
in an increasing number of states around the
world now embody express or implied provisions
on the right to adequate housing.� They fur-ther
strengthen the basis for claiming the implementation
of that right at the domestic level.� A recent
example is the 1996 Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa, which expressly guarantees
the right to adequate housing and prohibits
the practice of forced eviction.� The Constitution
provides that:
1. Everyone
has the right to have access to adequate housing.
2. The state
must take reasonable legislative and other means,
within its available resources, to achieve the
progressive realization of this right.
3. No one may
be evicted from their home, or have their home
demolished, without an order of court made after
considering all the relevant circumstances.�
No leg�islation may permit arbitrary evictions.
The South African Constitution also provides
for the justiciability of the bill of rights,
in�cluding the right to adequate housing.� It
expressly confers legal standing to aggrieved
per�sons and their representatives to approach
the courts to enforce their rights.
Under most constitutions, however, housing is
classified under state policy and not as part
of a bill of rights.� Therefore, they are said
to be as�pirational and nonjusticiable. (See
Module 22.)� The
result is that in many states parties to the
ICESCR there exists a conflict between legally
binding interna�tional obligations related to
the right to ade�quate housing and con�stitutional
provisions that inhibit their local enforcement.
The Right to Adequate Housing-Obligations
of States
State obligations vis-�-vis the right to adequate
housing are frequently misunderstood.� They
do not mean that the state is required to build
housing for the entire population, or that hous�ing
should be provided free of charge to the populace,
or even that this right will mani�fest itself
in the same manner in all places at all times.�
Rather, recognition of the right to housing
by a state means:
- The state undertakes to endeavor by all
appropriate means to ensure that everyone
has ac�cess to affordable and acceptable housing.
- The state will undertake a series of measures
which indicate policy and legislative recog�nition
of each of the constituent aspects of the
right to housing.
- The state will protect and improve houses
and neighborhoods rather than damage or destroy
them.
The essential elements of the states
obligation to implement all ESC rights (including
the right to adequate housing) are encapsulated
under article 2(1) of the ICESCR.� (See Module
9).
In addition, article 2(2) of the Covenant prohibits
discrimination of any kind as to race, color,
sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status, in the exercise of the
rights enunciated in the Covenant.� This provision
can and should be used as the basis for addressing
several institutional, legal and cultural barriers
to access of women to land and housing.���
Recent developments in the body of international
human rights law reaffirm that the right to
adequate housing is guaranteed to traditionally
disenfranchised members of society, includ�ing
women, internally displaced persons, and refugees.�
In August 1998, the Sub-Commis�sion on the Prevention
of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
urged governments, in view of the fact that
"womens experiences of poverty are
particularly severe and prohibit women from
escaping the poverty trap," to "review
their laws, policies, customs and tradi�tions
pertaining to land, property and housing rights,
[and] to amend and repeal laws and policies
. . . which deny women security of tenure and
equal access and rights to land, prop�erty and
housing."
[2] �The sub-commission has also
recognized the right of refugees and inter�nally
displaced persons to the free and fair exercise
of their "right to return to [their] home
and place of habitual place of residence,"
while stating that "the right to adequate
housing includes the right of protection for
returning refugees and internally displaced
per�sons against being compelled to return to
their homes and places of habitual residence." [3]
Content of Article 11 of the ICESCR-the
Right to Adequate Housing
The CESCR in its sixth session, in 1991, adopted
a detailed General Comment on article 11(1)
of the Covenant dealing with the right to adequate
housing. [4] � The following are
some of the major points from that Comment (the
full text of General Comment 4 appears on pp.
256-61):
-
The interrelationship between the
right to housing and other rights
The CESCR noted that "the full enjoyment
of other rights-such as the right to free�dom
of expression, the right to freedom of association
(such as for tenants and other commu�nity-based
groups), the right to freedom of residence
and the right to participate in public decision‑making-is
indispensable if the right to adequate housing
is to be realized and maintained by all
groups in society.� Similarly, the right
not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with ones privacy, family,
home or correspondence constitutes a very
important dimension in defining the right
to adequate housing"(para. 9).
Interdependence of
Rights
Housing and Education
In 1990 the military government of Nigeria
evicted the 300,000 residents of the Maroko
community in Lagos, Nigeria, providing
resettlement for only 3 percent. The government
subsequently provided no alternative schooling
opportunities for the children of Maroko,
whose education was abruptly cut off by
the forced eviction.
The Social and Economic Rights Action
Center (SERAC) in Lagos has developed
a line of cases designed to challenge
in the courts violations of the ESC rights
of the people of Maroko. In one of those
cases, Akilla v. Lagos State Government
and Others, SERAC is challenging the denial
of the right to primary education to over
9,000 pupils of the eleven Maroko schools
demolished along with the community. The
suit seeks to compel the Lagos state government
to institute a remedial educational program
to address the needs of the displaced
students. It hinges on the government's
obligation to provide free and compulsory
primary education as guaranteed under
the ICESCR, the African Charter on Human
and Peoples' Rights, and other human rights
instruments ratified by Nigeria.
|
-
Holders
of the right to housing
The CESCR categorically stated that the
right to adequate housing applies to every�one.�
It clarified that the term "himself
and his family" does not impose "any
limitations upon the applicability of the
right to individuals or to female‑headed
households or other such groups.� Thus,
the concept of family must be
understood in a wide sense.� Further, indi�viduals,
as well as families, are entitled to adequate
housing regardless of age, eco�nomic status,
group or other affiliation or status and
other such factors.� In particular, en�joyment
of this right must . . . not be subject
to any form of discrimination" (para.6).
Scope
of the right to housing
The right to housing should not be interpreted
in a narrow or restrictive sense, but should
be seen as the right to live somewhere in
security, peace and dignity.� It should
be en�sured to all persons irrespective
of income or access to economic resources.�
The refer�ence in article 11(1) must be
read as referring not just to housing, but
to adequate housing (para. 7).
-
Meaning
of adequate housing
While acknowledging that social, economic,
cultural, climatic, ecological and other
fac�tors, in part, determine adequacy, the
CESCR identified the following as essential
com�ponents of adequacy (para. 8):
- Legal security of tenure
- Availability of services, materials,
facilities and infrastructure
- Affordability
- Habitability
- Accessibility
- Location
- Cultural adequacy
It stated that, regardless of their level
of development, states must take certain
steps im�mediately to guarantee the right.�
One such step is monitoring to ascertain
the full extent of homelessness and inadequate
housing within its jurisdiction (para. 10).
The committee stressed the need to give
priority to social groups living in unfavorable
conditions, and noted that policies and
laws should not benefit already advantaged
social groups at the expense of others.�
It acknowledged that economic crises arising
from ex�ternal factors may have a bearing
on the right.� However, it stressed that
"the obligations under the Covenant
continue to apply and are perhaps even more
pertinent during times of economic contraction"
(para. 11).� It would be inconsistent with
obligations under the Covenant if living
and housing conditions decline because of
policy and legislative deci�sions taken
by states parties.� It also identified the
adoption of a national housing strategy
as an im�portant step.
-
The right
to housing and international cooperation
A substantial proportion of international
assistance should be devoted to creating
condi�tions leading to a higher number of
persons being adequately housed.� The CESCR
also stressed that "international financial
institutions promoting measures of structural
adjustment should en-sure that such measures
do not compromise the enjoyment of the right
to adequate housing" (para. 19).
Forced Eviction
The CESCR in its General Comment 4, adopted
in 1991, stated 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 princi�ples
of international law" (para. 18).� In 1997,
the CESCR issued General Comment 7 spe�cifically
on forced evictions.
[5] � The following is a summary of that
Comment (the full text appears on pp. 262-66):
-
Definition
of the term "forced evictions"
Forced evictions, in the context of General
Comment 7, are "the permanent or tempo�rary
removal against their will of individuals,
families and/or communities from the homes
and/or land which they occupy, without the
provision of, and access to, appropriate
forms of legal or other protection"
(para. 4).
-
Violations
arising from forced evictions
Forced evictions manifestly breach the
rights enshrined in the ICESCR.� In addition,
the practice of forced evictions may result
in "violations of civil and political
rights, such as the right to life, the right
to the security of the person, the right
to non-interference with privacy, family
and home and the right to the peaceful enjoyment
of possessions" (para. 5).
-
Vulnerable
groups and forced evictions
"Women, children, youth, older persons,
indigenous people, ethnic and other minorities,
and other vulnerable individuals and groups
all suffer disproportionately from the prac�tice
of forced eviction" (para. 11).
-
Obligations
of states parties regarding forced evictions
The obligations of states parties with
regard to forced evictions arise from article
11(1) dealing with the right to housing.�
The right not to be forcefully evicted is
complemented by the guarantee against "arbitrary
or unlawful interference" with ones
home guaranteed under article 17(1) of the
ICCPR (para. 9).
-
Obligation
to enact legislation against forced evictions
Enacting legislation against forced evictions
"is an essential basis upon which to
build a system of effective protection."�
The CESCR clarified that legislation must
also apply in relation to "all agents
acting under the authority of the State
or who are accountable to it" (para.
10).
-
Procedural
protection and due process
Where eviction is considered justifiable,
it should be "carried out in strict
compliance with the relevant provisions
of international human rights law and in
accordance with general principles of reasonableness
and proportionality."� The committee
suggested a number of procedural protections
(paras. 15 and 16).
Advocacy Work with
Multilateral Agencies
The Nigerian Example
While states are primarily involved in
forced evictions, nonstate actors, including
multilateral development institutions
and transnational corporations, have also
become important perpetrators of large-scale
forced evictions.
On 16 June 16 1998, the Social and Economic
Rights Action Center (SERAC) filed a Request
for Inspection before the World Bank Inspection
Panel. Framed from a human rights perspective,
the request challenged the extensive economic,
social and cultural rights violations
perpetrated by the World Bank in partnership
with the Nigerian government under the
Bank-funded Lagos Drainage and Sanitation
Project (LDSP).
SERAC's Request for Inspection followed
the Lagos state government's July 1996
announcement that it intended to demolish
fifteen slum communities under a World
Bank-funded project without making provisions
for the compensation or resettlement of
the slum dwellers. Under the LDSP pilot
project, over 2,000 persons have been
forcibly evicted from their homes and
businesses in Ijora Badiya and Ijora Oloye,
both slum communities in central Lagos.
Specifically, SERAC complained that the
LDSP had flagrantly violated the Bank's
operational directives and the human rights
of residents of the local host communities
who were not consulted during the project
planning stages, relocated or rehabilitated
after the demolitions, or compensated
for their real and personal property losses.
Following a site visit to the project-affected
communities, the inspection panel held
that it was "not satisfied that the
[Project] Management had fully complied
with the [World Bank's] resettlement policy"
in so far as it had "failed to provide
resettlement and compensation for some
affected people."6
|
-
Remedies including compensation for
victims
Prior to carrying out any evictions, especially
those involving large groups, states parties
should consult with affected persons, and
explore all feasible alternatives for avoiding
or minimizing the need to use force.� Legal
remedies and compensation must be available
to affected persons (para. 14).
-
International
agencies and forced evictions
With regard to development projects financed
by international agencies that result in
forced evictions, "international agencies
should scrupulously avoid involvement in
proj�ects . . . which involve large-scale
evictions or displacement of persons without
the provi�sion of all appropriate protection
and compensation.� Every effort should be
made, at each phase of a development project,
to ensure that the rights contained in the
Covenant are duly taken into account"
(para. 18).
The CESCRs Review of State Party
Reports on the Right to Housing
While reviewing reports submitted by states
parties to the Covenant, the CESCR has af�firmed
that states have a clear obligation to protect
the right to adequate housing.� For exam�ple,
in 1998 it reviewed the report submitted by
the Federal Military Government of Nigeria.�
In response, it "expressed its deep concern
about the rising number of homeless women and
young girls, who are forced to sleep in the
streets where they are vulnerable to rape and
other forms of violence"7
and was generally "appalled at the great
number of homeless people."8 It found that
there is an acute housing problem in Nigeria
where decent housing is scarce and rela�tively
expensive.� The urban poor, especially women
and children, are forced to live in make-shift
cheap dumps or shelters in appalling and degrading
conditions rep�re�senting both physical and
mental illness hazards.� Safe, treated pipe-borne
water is available to about fifty percent
of urban dwellers but only thirty percent
of rural in�habi�tants.� By and large only
thirty-nine percent of Nigerias population
have ade�quate access to clean drinking water
(para. 27).
The committee further expressed concern regarding
the Nigerian governments failure to protect
the right to adequate housing.� It urged the
government to
cease forthwith the massive and arbitrary
evictions of people from their homes and take
such measures as necessary in order to alleviate
the plight of those who are sub�ject to arbitrary
evictions or are too poor to afford a decent
accommodation.� In view of the acute shortage
of housing, the Government of Nigeria should
allocate adequate resources and make sustained
efforts to combat this serious situation.9
The CESCR and Force
Evictions
A Case Study from the Dominican Republic
The Committee for the Defense of Rights
of the Barrio (COPADEBA) and Ciudad Alternativa
are respectively a popular community-based
organization and an NGO who have worked
together for more than a decade, confronting
planned forced evictions throughout the
Dominican Republic (DR) and primarily
in the capital, Santo Domingo. Between
1985 and 1995 over 200,000 slum dwellers
in the capital faced violent forced eviction
in conjunction with urban beautification
programs and festivities commemorating
the 500th anniversary of Columbus's landing
in the country.
Following contacts with international
human rights NGOs, such as the Centre
on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE),
these two groups increased their use of
international human rights standards as
a tool against evictions. In this regard,
the two groups were the first national
organizations to successfully utilize
the CESCR to achieve official condemnation
of a state party to the ICESCR. In 1990
the committee for the first time declared
that a state party, the DR, had violated
article 11 of the Covenant due to its
practice of forced evictions. In 1991,
the Dominican NGOs were able to persuade
the CESCR to issue a warning to the government
not to carry out a planned eviction that
would have affected over 70,000 dwellers.
As a result, the eviction was not carried
out and, in 1996, the presidential decree
that had originally ordered the eviction
was officially repealed by the new government.
As a result of the housing rights struggle
waged by COPADEBA and Ciudad Alternativa,
the community originally scheduled to
be evicted now has secure tenure and access
to many basic social services.10
|
Strategies for Ensuring the Enjoyment of the
Right to Housing
Legal strategies
Housing rights are determinate and justiciable.�
Direct arguments in support of the right to
adequate housing can be founded on legally binding
provisions con�tained in international, regional
or national laws. (See Module
22 for more discussion of liti�gation and
the justi�ciability of ESC rights.)
The CESCR has stated that many elements of
the right to adequate housing are consistent
with domestic legal remedies.� It has identified
the following areas in which the domestic le�gal
system could play a role in safeguarding the
right to housing:
(a) legal appeals aimed at preventing planned
evictions or demolitions through the issu�ance
of court‑ordered injunctions;
(b) legal procedures seeking compensation
following an illegal eviction;
(c) complaints against illegal
actions carried out or supported by landlords
(whether pub�lic or private) in relation to
rent levels dwelling maintenance, and racial
or other forms of discrimination;
(d) allegations of any form of
discrimination in the allocation and availability
of ac�cess to housing; and
(e) complaints against landlords
concerning unhealthy or� inadequate housing
condi�tions.� In some legal systems it would
also be appropriate to explore the possibil�ity
of facili�tating class action suits in situations
involving significantly increased levels of
homelessness.11
In addition to seeking enforcement of rights
by using standards directly related to the right
to housing, cases can be filed using derivative
claims.� For example, the right to adequate
housing may be implied from express guarantees
of other rights (e.g., the right to life, pri�vacy
of the home, right to family life) that are
generally recognized as basic civil and politi�cal
rights.
Indian courts have used this approach to read
the right to adequate housing into cases based
on the right to life as guaranteed under article
21 of the Indian Constitution.� In the case
of Shanti Star Builders v. Naryan Khimali
Tatome et al., the Indian Supreme Court
held as fol�lows:
Basic needs of man have traditionally been
accepted to be free-food, clothing, and shelter.�
The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized
society.� That would take within its sweep
the right to food, the right to clothing,
the right to decent environ�ment and a reasonable
accommodation to live in. . . For a human
being [the right to shelter] has to be a suitable
accommodation which would allow him to grow
in every aspect-physical, mental and intellectual.
. . . A reasonable residence is an indispen�sa�ble
necessity for fulfilling the constitutional
goal in the matter of development of man and
should be taken as included in "life"
in article 21.12
In an earlier decision in the highly celebrated
case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Cor�poration,
the court declared that "eviction of petitioners
from their dwellings would result in the deprivation
of their livelihood."13
Where legislation is inadequate or does not
exist at all, NGOs should develop model legisla�tion
on the right to housing.� Such legislation should
be drafted with a view to including all minimum
core components of the right with the local
context in mind.� NGOs should then lobby for
the adoption of such legislation.
Non-legal strategies
Legal strategies should be combined with other
strategies to ensure the full realization of
the right to housing.� Effective guarantees
of housing rights require con�sultation, dialogue,
nego�tiation and compromise rather than coercion,
force, repression and exclusion.� Activists
must therefore acquire relevant skills for building
consensus around is�sues relating to the right
to housing.� Support-based strategies that recognize
the role of the informal sector in the crea�tion
of housing must be developed and implemented.�
In the final analysis, the full realization
of the right to adequate housing would depend
on the extent of awareness and action taken
for ensuring its enjoyment.��
Other key strategies for action on the right
to adequate housing may include:�
- Research
- Education
- Monitoring
- Mobilization
- Participation (neighborhood networks)
- Negotiation
- Constituency building
- Intersectoral collaboration
- Development of model national housing plans
- Budget analysis.
Author: The author of this module is
Felix Morka
USING
MODULE 13 IN A TRAINING PROGRAM
NOTES
1.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact
Sheet No. 21 (1996), The Human Right to
Adequate Housing, 4.
2.
SC Res. 1998/15, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/1998/15
(21 Aug. 1998).
3.
SC Res. 1998/26, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/1998/26
(26 Aug. 1998).
4.
CESCR, General Comment 4, The right to
adequate housing (Art. 11, para. 1 of the
Covenant) (Sixth session, 1991), Compilation
of General Comments and General Recommendations
Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, UN
Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 53 (1994).
5.
CESCR, General Comment 7, The right to
adequate housing (Art. 11, para. 1 of the
Covenant): forced evictions, UN Doc. E/C.12/1997/4
(1997).
�6.� See
SERAC@WORK 2, no. 1 (1999).
7.
CESCR, Concluding observations on Nigeria,
UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.23 at para. 23 (13 May
1998).
9.�Ibid.,
para. 42.
10.
This case study was provided by Scott Leckie
of the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions
(COHRE).
12.
Shakti Star Builders v. Naryan Khimali
Tatome et al. (1) SC 106, Civil Appeal
No. 2598 of 1989 (JT 1990).
13.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
(3) SCC 545 (1985).
|