189. The right to protection from displacement is derived from the right to freedom of movement and
choice of residence contemplated in the African Charter and other international instruments.
Displacement by force, and without legitimate or legal basis, as is the case in the present
communication, is a denial of the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence.
190. The Complainant submitted that thousands of civilian were forcibly evicted from their homes to
make-shift camps for internally displaced persons or fled to neighbouring countries as refugees.
People in the Darfur region cannot move freely for fear of being killed by gunmen allegedly supported
by the Respondent State. The Respondent State failed to prevent forced evictions or to take urgent
steps to ensure displaced persons return to their homes. The Commission therefore finds that the
Respondent State has violated 12 (1) of the African Charter.
Alleged violation of Article 14
191. The Complainants also alleged violation of Article 14 of the Charter which provides that ‘[t]he
right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or
in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws’.
192. The right to property is a traditional fundamental right in democratic and liberal societies. It is
guaranteed in international human rights instruments as well as national constitutions, and has been
33
established by the jurisprudence of the African Commission. The role of the State is to respect and
protect this right against any form of encroachment, and to regulate the exercise of this right in order
for it to be accessible to everyone, taking public interest into due consideration.
193. The right to property encompasses two main principles. The first one is of a general nature. It
provides for the principle of ownership and peaceful enjoyment of property. The second principle
provides for the possibility, and conditions of deprivation of the right to property. Article 14 of the
Charter recognises that States are in certain circumstances entitled, among other things, to control the
use of property in accordance with the public or general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem
necessary for the purpose.
194. However, in the situation described by the present communication, the State has not taken and
does not want to take possession of the victims’ property. The property has been destroyed by its
military forces and armed groups, acting on their own, or believed to be supported by the Respondent
State. Could it be said that the victims have been deprived of their right to property? The answer to
this is yes, and this is supported by international jurisprudence.
34
195. In Dogan and others v Turkey ,the applicants allege that State security forces forcibly evicted
them from their village, given the disturbances in the region at that time, and also destroyed their
property.
196. The applicants complained to the European Court of Human Rights about their forced eviction
from their homes and the Turkish authorities’ refusal to allow them to return. They relied on among
other provisions, Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Article
8 (right to respect for family life and home), and, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
197. The Court also recalled that the state of emergency at the time of the events complained of was
characterised by violent confrontations between the security forces and members of the PKK which
forced many people to flee their homes. The Turkish authorities had also evicted the inhabitants of a
number of settlements to ensure the safety of the population in the region. In numerous similar cases
the Court had found that security forces had deliberately destroyed the homes and property of
applicants, depriving them of their livelihoods and forcing them to leave their villages.
198. The Court recognised that armed clashes, generalised violence and human rights violations,
specifically within the context of the PKK insurgency, compelled the authorities to take extraordinary
measures to maintain security in the state of emergency region. Those measures involved, among
others, the restriction of access to several villages, including Boydaş, as well as the evacuation of
some villages.
199. The Court noted that the applicants all lived in Boydaş village until 1994. Although they did not
have registered property, they either had their own houses constructed on the lands of their ancestors
or lived in houses owned by their fathers and cultivated their fathers’ land. They also had
unchallenged rights over the common lands in the village and earned their living from breeding